It is a startling fact that the cults of today are conceived in the soil of orthodox, evangelical Christianity. Harold Bussell, in his excellent book Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians, has come to this disturbing conclusion:
A close examination of popular Western cults reveals that many began in an Evangelical church or under leaders who claimed Christianity—men and women from solid church backgrounds. … Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, was reared in a Presbyterian home. Jim Jones, founder of the People’s Temple, at one time attended a Nazarene church; later he pastored an interdenominational church and a Disciples of Christ congregation. Moses David (David Berg), founder of the Children of God, is the son of Evangelical parents, served as a minister in a Christian and Missionary Alliance church, and was involved for a time in a Christian television ministry. Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of The Way, came out of the Reformed Church, where he served as pastor to a number of active congregations; during the forties he served as an adjunct professor of New Testament at a leading Evangelical college. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Scientists, and Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were both raised in markedly Christian homes and churches.1
The Mormon church has chosen the city of Dallas as one of its principle targets from which to gain converts and in which to build a temple. Here, in the very “buckle of the Bible belt,” this cult has chosen to make a massive thrust. I am told that the Southern Baptist denomination is the greatest source of converts to this cult. How can this possibly be true? Bussell’s disconcerting conclusion is that while in matters of doctrine the church of our Lord Jesus Christ is decidedly different from the cults, in practice it is often similar. Thus the transition from the true church to a cult does not appear to be as great as our doctrine would indicate.
The purpose of this series of messages in the Book of Galatians, quite honestly, is intended to counter erroneous teaching pertaining to salvation and the spiritual life which has been introduced in this city. As I have investigated this teaching and compared it with the teaching of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that it is, in essence, cultic. I will not name this cult, for it must be recognized in contrast to the doctrines of the Word of God. Neither will I refute the teachings of this cult point by point, for this would tend to spread the error and allow them, rather than allowing the Bible, to provide us with the agenda for study. I will instead address the issue from a book of the Bible which deals with such error and which counters it with truth.
The doctrines of salvation and sanctification are unrivaled in their importance. Yet the misrepresentation of such doctrines is the source of countless errors. The false teaching of these doctrines so crucial to the Christian faith has not only spawned countless cults, but affected the Christian walk in all its facets. The Book of Galatians counters such teachings by instructing us in the essentials of true spirituality. Its goal is not to refute various forms of error, but to guide us along the path of true Christian living. Let us approach this study with open hearts and minds. Let us seek to understand the mind of the Spirit as conveyed through the Apostle Paul. Finally, let us seek to apply what we learn for our good and for God’s glory.
It is worth examining a relationship between the Book of Galatians and the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts. I have chosen Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council as the introduction to our study for several reasons. First, this chapter provides us with the origin of the issue with which Paul deals in Galatians. It gives us an historical context by which we may better understand both the issue and its implications. Second, Acts 15 enables us to more clearly see the issue as one which is proposed by a cult. With this perspective, we find in this chapter many of the characteristics of the cults, thus better preparing us to identify them and to stand apart from them. Third, we learn from the Jerusalem Council how to deal with a cult. Let us seek to see how this struggle and its solution relates to practical Christian living today for in this account we find an attack on the gospel itself, an attack which could have devastated the early church, and one which has unfortunately wrought havoc in many churches throughout the centuries.
The church was well progressed by the time the Jerusalem Council was convened. Unregenerate Judaism had vigorously resisted the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles to the extent that Paul was nearly killed for telling his fellow countrymen that God had commanded him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21-22). Such reaction would not be surprising from those who rejected Christ and the preaching of the gospel. However, the church itself struggled with the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles.
The Christians remained in Jerusalem until a severe persecution scattered them (Acts 8:1-4). Philip went as far as Samaria (8:5). An angel commanded Philip to leave Samaria to lead an Ethiopian eunuch to Christ (8:26-39). The purpose of the dramatic conversion of Paul was to proclaim Christ to the Gentiles (9:15). Peter was compelled by a vision and a direct command before he would preach to Cornelius and a house full of Gentiles (Acts 10). Because of his preaching to the Gentiles, Peter was confronted by the Jerusalem church (11:1-3). When he related his experience, no one could deny that God had chosen to save the Gentiles (11:18). Nevertheless, the church at large still did not preach to the Gentiles (11:19). Only a handful of Christians from Cyprus dared do so, which resulted in the first Gentile church in Antioch (11: 20-26).
It was from this Gentile church at Antioch that Silas and Paul were sent as the first missionaries to the Gentiles (13:1-3). Many Gentiles were converted to faith in Christ and a number of predominantly Gentile churches were established. The Jewish church which had once dominated the spiritual scene was quickly being outnumbered. Antioch, a largely Gentile congregation (cf. Acts 11:19-22), had become the launching pad for missionary outreach. The handwriting on the wall was already apparent—the composition and the control of the church was changing hands, from Jews to Gentiles.
Jewish believers, including Paul (cf. Acts 18:18; 20:16; 1 Cor. 16:8), still continued to practice much of the Old Testament Law, not so much as an essential aspect of Christianity but as a part of their Jewish culture (cf. Acts 21:17-26). When Barnabas and Paul preached the gospel, they did not compel the Gentiles to imitate their Jewish brethren by insisting that they keep the Law. This was a matter of concern for Jewish Christians and the basis for later accusations that Paul even went so far as to discourage Jewish Christians from observing the Law as Jewish believers (Acts 21:21).
The whole matter came to a head at Antioch upon the arrival of a group of Jewish Christians who began to teach the Gentile brethren that they had to be circumcised and keep the Law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas vigorously opposed this teaching, which resulted in great dissension and debate (v. 2).
The root of the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the Judaizers in Antioch was a difference over the definition of the gospel. Paul and Barnabas preached that faith in the shed blood of Christ alone was sufficient to save. The Judaizers adamantly protested that this was not enough. The Gentiles, they insisted, could only be saved by converting to Judaism, in addition to confessing Christ as their Savior. The consequences of this error brought division and dissension to the church. Dissension and debate had forced every Christian to take sides, and rightly so, for one doctrine was truth and the other was falsehood; one led to life and the other to death.
The problem created by the Judaizers was taken seriously for two principle reasons: they distorted the gospel and they divided the church (vv. 1-2). The decision reached by the church at Antioch2 revealed both humility and wisdom. Humility was evidenced by the fact that this growing Gentile congregation was eager to have the Jewish leaders of the Jerusalem church decide this matter, which was highly charged with racial overtones. Wisdom also prevailed, for once the Jerusalem church had spoken, the issue was laid to rest. In addition, the composition of the group which was sent fairly represented all sides, so that the controversy was fully discussed and the decision binding on all parties.
The delegation made its way toward Jerusalem. Along the way these saints stopped to visit other believers, sharing with them the way in which God had been saving the Gentiles. This brought great joy to all the brethren (v. 3). I personally believe this verse provides us with a significant clue. Acts 11:10 suggests that the “brethren” of Phoenicia (if not of Samaria) were Jewish Christians. The Jewish believers rejoiced at the salvation of the Gentiles. The issue was no longer to whom the gospel should be preached (cf. Acts 10 and 11); instead it centered around the content of the gospel. The Jewish church had truly progressed since its inception. Instead of excluding Gentiles from the gospel, they now rejoiced in their salvation. Now the Jewish brethren were asking, “what are the requirements for the salvation of the Gentiles?”
The formalities had hardly been completed when the fireworks began. The issue was forced by a group which gained the floor (lit. stood up)3 and insisted, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law4 of Moses” (v. 5).
Just who were these people so adamant about the Old Testament Law? In verse 1 they are identified as those who had come down from Judea. Verse 5 further enlightens us with the indication that they were a part of the “sect”5 of the Pharisees who had believed. Paul himself had been a member of the strictest party of Pharisees before his conversion (Acts 26:5),6 but his testimony reveals that the kind of righteousness which his Pharisaism produced was but “dung,” compared to the righteousness of Christ (cf. Phil. 3:1-13, esp. vv. 5, 7-9). In Acts, Luke intends for us to look upon the members of this “sect” as genuine believers, although this would certainly not be true of the Pharisees as a whole. In Galatians, Paul is much more stern, calling this same teaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6), and pronouncing a curse on any who preached it (Gal. 1:8-9). From Acts 15:24 we learn that while these false teachers were indeed members of the Jerusalem church, they did not have the sanction of the apostles. What they preached as apostolic were merely the doctrines of man.
Historically, the Pharisaic party was founded following the exile and during the inter-testamental period to preserve Judaism at a time of growing Gentile political and social dominance. By the time of our Lord’s coming, their teachings had become legalistic. They saw law-keeping as the means of man’s salvation and as the basis for the coming of Messiah. Jesus frequently was confronted by this party, and His response was a scathing rebuke for their hypocrisy (cf. Matthew 19:3-12; 22:15-22, 34-46; 23:1-39; John 8:3-11). It would seem that while a number of Pharisees had come to faith in Christ, some of these had failed to fully renounce the legalism of this sect, thus striving to keep Christianity within the narrow boundaries of Pharisaism.
The issue before the Council was clear: Do Gentiles have to convert to Judaism in addition to converting to Christ? The deeper and more fundamental issue was: Are men saved by faith alone, or by faith plus the keeping of the Old Testament Law? A formal hearing was convened and the matter was thoroughly debated before a decision was reached.
Notice that what Luke records is only a sketch of the total proceedings. Much more was spoken than became Scripture. Why doesn’t Luke give us a blow-by-blow description of the debate? I would suggest that in this debate, as in most, there is a great deal said that is not worthy of recording, especially in the Word of God. I think there is considerable wisdom in providing us with only the “bottom line” of the teaching of the Pharisees. Why give error a broader hearing than necessary? The arguments of Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James are more than sufficient to show that grace and law are incompatible.
After much debate, Peter stood (v. 7). His testimony was particularly pertinent because of the events already described in chapters 10 and 11. It was the Pharisaic interpretation of the Jewish food laws which prohibited Peter from sitting at the table of a Gentile. The vision which God gave Peter in chapter 10 was intended to remove such restrictions. Thus evangelism among the Gentiles could prosper, and Jews and Gentiles could become one in spirit and in truth in the church.
There had been considerable reaction among the leaders of the Jerusalem church to Peter’s unauthorized missionary activity regarding Cornelius and the Gentiles gathered to hear the gospel (Acts 11:1-3). Only after Peter’s explanation of God’s guidance and the gift of the Holy Spirit did the church leaders come to the conclusion that God had chosen to save the Gentiles (Acts 11:17-18). Peter’s argument was based upon the previous conclusion of these leaders. What was true in Acts 11 was the precedent for the decision of the Jerusalem Council in chapter 15. God had divinely called Peter to preach to the Gentiles, putting aside such legalistic matters as the food laws. Since God had shown no partiality between Jews and Gentiles by giving both His Spirit in the same way (Acts 11:15-17; 15:8), how could the church make any distinction? Had the Pharisees won the day the church would have acted contrary to what God had already taught them, that is, that He had saved and accepted into fellowship Gentiles as Gentiles (and not as Jewish proselytes).
Peter’s first argument was based on the lesson he and the church had learned concerning Cornelius and those gathered in his house. His second argument went even further, pressing for the basis of salvation for either Jew or Gentile. Finally he turned to the lesson which should have been learned from the history of Israel and from the teaching of our Lord. Gentiles need not become Jewish to be saved because Judaism has never saved anyone. In his first argument, Peter concluded that once saved, God did not distinguish between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Peter continued the debate by showing that Judaism was not essential to salvation.
Peter rightly perceived that the Judaizers were teaching that salvation was not a matter of grace but of works. These false teachers insisted that the Gentiles could only be saved by being circumcised according to the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1). The gospel had been redefined, just as Paul forcefully stated in Galatians (1:6-10). To insist upon the Gentiles becoming Jewish proselytes was to limit salvation to Jews alone. This further implied that Jews were saved by the keeping of the Law. The Gentiles, however, had been saved only by faith (Acts 15:9). In fact, the Jews had never been saved by the Law; it was an unbearable yoke that only condemned: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). Peter powerfully concluded: “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are” (Acts 15:11).
The true underlying issue is: How are men saved? Both Jews and Gentiles are saved alike, by the grace of God (v. 11), through faith alone (v. 9), and not by law-keeping (v. 10). The Law can only condemn; it cannot save (Gal. 3:1-14). It is a yoke of bondage, not of freedom (Gal. 5:1).
The error which was taught by the Judaizers was not only serious, it was sin. It was, to use Peter’s very words, to “put God to the test” (Acts 15:10). How is God put to the test by our requiring others to live under the Law? The expression, “to put God to the test,” is found several times in Scripture. As we consider these instances, we shall learn the nature of this sin and the way it was manifested in the teachings of the Judaizers.
The first instance of this expression, “to put God to the test,” is found in Exodus 17:
Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?” … And he named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us, or not?” (Exod. 17:2, 7).
Only a short time before, God had manifested His power and might by smiting Egypt with plagues and by bringing His people out of Egypt through the parting of the Red Sea. Yet they quarreled with Moses because they came to a place without water. They tested God by demanding that He reveal (prove) Himself by giving them water. In other words, they refused to believe God was with them unless He gave them what they wanted, when they wanted it. They tested God by demanding proof of His presence through an outward, visible act, which they specified. To put God to the test is to demand that He act as we want Him to. Such unbelief and testing is based upon God’s miraculous activities in the past and upon some present painful circumstance.
God later referred to this incident when He commanded, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah” (Deut. 6:16). The context of this passage is crucial to our understanding of this command. This command was given just prior to Israel’s entrance into the promised land, with all of its prosperity (Deut. 6:10-12). The immediately preceding verses prohibit following the religion of the land and practicing their idolatry (vv. 13-15).
The false religions of the Canaanites and the people of the land were based upon a direct relationship between the god they worshipped and the prosperity of the people. These religions worshipped gods who controlled nature (fertility, rain, prosperity). Idolatry was always involved because the people wanted a visual symbol of their belief. In the context of Deuteronomy, I believe that God was warning His people about obedience which was based only on tangible, visible evidences of His blessings. He was warning His people not to insist upon Him proving His presence among them by the outward manifestations of His power. The people of God should obey Him because He is God, not because He brings prosperity. Obedience and trust are not to be conditioned upon God’s performance according to our expectations and standards. Job is an example of the kind of trust God requires of His people.
The expression, “to put God to the test,” occurs again in the gospels in the temptation of our Lord by Satan. Satan challenged our Lord to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, based upon the promise of deliverance in Scripture (Psalm 91:11-12; Matt. 4:5-6). Our Lord responded by quoting this passage from Deuteronomy 6: “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (Matt. 4:7).
Do you see Satan’s line of reasoning? First he began with a promise of God’s protection. Then he urged our Lord to prove God’s faithfulness by forcing Him to keep that promise. In effect Satan’s argument was: “God is only to be trusted when He visibly proves Himself by acting according to a way which we prescribe, based upon His Word.”
When our Lord quoted the passage from Deuteronomy 6 (based upon Exod. 17:2, 7), He reminded Satan what faith really is. Faith trusts in God in the midst of adversity, without demanding that He perform according to our preferences, based upon His promises. God’s promises are true, but we have no right to demand that God act according to our desires. Satan was implying that it was wrong for our Lord to be deprived of food for forty days, but it was God’s Spirit who led Him into that time of testing (Matt. 4:1). Our Lord told Satan that He did not need to “prove” His Father’s care in order to trust in Him. If suffering and self-denial were His will (as the cross would be), then He would trust and obey. Faith in God does not require outward, visible proof, demanding that God keep His promises according to our preferences.
In Acts 5:9 Peter said to Sapphira, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?” This is a difficult text to interpret, but I believe that previous uses of this expression provide us with the key. Ananias and Sapphira had sold their property and had given most of the proceeds to the apostles. They had kept a small portion for themselves, but had indicated that what they gave the apostles was the entire amount received from the sale of their property. Such deception was sin because it was lying to God (Acts 5:4). In verse 10 Peter addressed the sin which was the primary motive for withholding part of the proceeds. They “put God to the test.” Why did they keep some money for themselves? I believe Peter’s words provide the reason. They did not trust God. They needed tangible proof of God’s presence—in this case, a little money in the bank. They were not willing to trust God with absolutely no visible basis for security. They wanted to have tangible evidence to bolster their faith, but this is inconsistent with faith: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
All this precisely describes the problem with the teachings of the Judaizers. They felt that they needed tangible proof of God’s presence among the Gentiles in order to believe He had saved them. The visible evidence which they demanded was provided by the Jewish Law, especially that which stressed external, outward action, such as circumcision. With this evidence, they could believe that God was present with the Gentiles. Such proof is always contrary to faith. Faith rests upon the basis of God’s person and promises, not on the basis of external evidence.
Let me seek to apply the principle of trusting God rather than testing God. We have said that we should never test God’s faithfulness by visible, tangible signs of His presence. If we dare not test God’s faithfulness by miraculous activities, why is it that some Christians seek to test their own faith by the miraculous hand of God in their life? The faith-healer tells the dying patient that if he has enough faith, God will heal him. Of course God can heal him. Perhaps God will heal him. If God’s presence and power is not to be tested by demanding a miracle, why do some test our faith in terms of whether or not we are healed? It takes far greater faith to trust in the goodness and the promises of God when He does not deliver us than when He does. If God’s faithfulness must not be tested by visible proofs, let us not seek to test our faith in Him by them either.
The demand of the Judaizers that the Gentiles give outward, visible proof of their salvation by keeping the Law was sinful for several reasons. First, it demeaned the person of Christ. What Christians are is solely dependent upon who Christ is. Our salvation, our security, our sanctification, are all “in Him” (cf. Eph. 1, Col. 1, esp. vv. 14-23). To question the salvation, security, and sanctification of a Christian, Jew or Gentile, is to question the worth of our Lord. Second, to demand the keeping of the Law doubts the power of the resurrected Christ, for it is only in His power that we can live righteously (cf. Rom. 8, esp. v. 11). Third, adherence to a code denies the principle of grace. It is not as a result of works, but through the benefits of grace that we are saved (Rom. 3:21-31; Eph. 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-7).
When Peter finished speaking there was the hush of silence. Perhaps no further argument was needed, but Barnabas and Paul now shared their testimony of the “signs and wonders” which had accompanied the salvation of the Gentiles. This was indeed significant, for signs and wonders had accredited the ministry of our Lord and that of His apostles (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4). The same signs which accompanied the birth of the church in Acts 2 also accompanied the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), the household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-46), and the Ephesian disciples of John (Acts 19:1-7).
The significance of “signs and wonders” accompanying the conversion of the Gentiles was immediately apparent to the leaders of the Jerusalem church. Such manifestations were regarded as the testimony of the Holy Spirit to true conversion and to membership in the body of Christ on equal standing with the Jewish Christians. Far from being an evidence of personal spirituality, the miraculous phenomena of tongues in Acts was proof of God’s acceptance of these new believers. They necessitated the Jewish church acting consistently with God’s testimony.
Lastly, James spoke perhaps as the most respected leader of the church at that time. James added one final evidence for the acceptance of the Gentile converts as Christians (vv. 13-18). He turned to the Old Testament prophets to show that God had indicated long beforehand that He intended to save Jews and Gentiles alike. What God had indicated to Peter, and had confirmed through the ministries of Barnabas and Paul, was consistent with the “word of the Prophets” (v. 15).
The meaning of the quotation which James cited is clear. The Jews had come to expect that when the kingdom was restored, the Gentiles would fall at their feet. Their expectation was that Gentiles might be saved, but that they would become, in effect, proselytes. The prophet Amos, as cited by James,7 not only spoke of the conversion of Gentiles, but did so as a separate entity rather than as a segment of Judaism. If this was the purpose of God, which could hardly be denied, then why would it be necessary for the Gentile converts to cease to be Gentiles and to convert to Judaism as well? It was a question which none of the Judaizers could answer.
There was probably a very practical reason for this added argument by James. Little, if any, New Testament Scripture had yet been recorded and recognized as such. The Judaizers must have therefore felt quite comfortable in turning to the Old Testament Scriptures to prove their point. After all, hadn’t God commanded His people to keep the Law? To allow the Gentiles to do otherwise appeared to be a violation of the Word of God. By citing this text in Amos as typical of the teaching of the Old Testament prophets, James proved that the doctrine defended by Paul and Barnabas was, indeed, a doctrine foretold in the Old Testament. Could the legalists use the Old Testament to prove their point? James used the Old Testament prophets (who were the interpreters of the Law), to disprove it.
While we have not completed our study of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, this is an appropriate place to end this lesson by raising the most critical question we can ever face, the question which is decided once and for all by the apostles: How is a man saved—by faith alone, or by faith plus some work? The answer of the apostles is absolutely clear—man is saved by faith alone.
“And God, who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are” (Acts 15: 8-11).
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (Rom. 3:21-22).
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:5-7).
Unfortunately there are many churches which teach that we are saved by faith and works. For some, such work is the keeping of the Law. For others, the work may be baptism. To teach thus is to pollute the gospel and to contradict the decision of the apostles. May I ask you with all the earnestness of an eternal issue, my friend, “In what are you trusting to save you?” You may be trusting in something which you have done—raising your hand, walking the aisle, praying a prayer, signing a card, catechism class or confirmation. None of these acts can save anyone. They may, for some, have been the expression of faith, but they can also be for others the substitute for faith. I urge you, in the quietness of this very moment, to consider in whom or in what you are trusting for the forgiveness of sins and for the assurance of entrance into God’s heaven. Christ alone is the adequate Object for your faith. Regardless of what you have done in the past, I urge you to acknowledge Him as the only basis for your eternal life. He died on the cross for your sins. He was raised so that you might live forever. Eternal life is yours for trusting in Him as God’s only provision for your salvation.
This passage has much to say to those of us who are believers in Jesus Christ. First, it reminds us of the heart of the gospel. The issues are those of personal sin, the wrath of God, and the truth that God’s wrath is satisfied by the death of Jesus Christ for all who trust in Him. That is frequently the gospel which we proclaim. We act as though God were in desperate need of more converts, and so we seek to attract men and women by telling them all of the wonderful benefits of becoming a Christian. We imply that God needs them more than they need God. If we are saved by faith alone, there is nothing which we are or can do which will somehow impress God and incline Him to save us. When we present salvation as a work of God’s grace, it is He that is central, not man. Let us learn from Acts 15 the message we need to share with men if they are to be saved.
Let us also learn that we dare not add requirements to the gospel which God has not made Himself. Often churches are afraid that unless we give a “hard sell,” telling the individual all that will be required of him as a Christian, we will produce ungodly Christians. That, I believe, was the fear of the Judaizers. If salvation were made too easy, the Gentiles would surely paganize the church. We often add our own “fine print” to the gospel, saying that converts must stop smoking, never touch alcohol again, and comply with a list of church “do’s and don’ts.” Let us be warned by the legalism of the Judaizers. We do not assure godly Christians by making the gospel more demanding than did our Lord or the apostles.
Finally, the purity of the gospel is not only vital because it defines God’s terms for salvation and determines the destiny of men, but it is also vital because the gospel defines the process of sanctification. When men begin to tamper with the gospel, they invariably pervert the biblical teaching on sanctification. The means of sanctification are the very same as those for salvation. The way we are saved is the way God sanctifies us as well:
For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Rom. 8:29-30).
Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:3).
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6).
As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him (Col. 2:6).
The gospel of salvation and the doctrine of sanctification are of one piece. Neither one is the combination of faith and human works. Both involve human action, but only that prompted and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Whenever we attempt to produce holiness and purity by law-keeping and legalism, we pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Many of those who pervert the gospel do not do so directly. They “back into” their heresy. They begin by claiming to believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone, but then they insist on law-keeping for sanctification. If salvation and sanctification are of one piece, then to pervert the one is to pervert the other. Let us be very careful to approach the ongoing of the spiritual life in the same way that we have its initiation.
1 Harold L. Bussell, Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 15-16. I strongly recommend that you purchase and read this insightful book.
2 The Greek text does not demand that we understand the decision to send a delegation to Jerusalem to be made by the Antiochan church or its leaders. The Western text suggests that it was the Judean delegation which demanded that their case be heard by the Jerusalem church leaders: “Those who had come from Jesusalem ordered … Paul and Barnabas themselves and some others to go up to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem to be judged before them about this question.” Quoted by Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 206.
No doubt, the Judaisers did appeal to the Jerusalem church for a decision, but the text seems to imply that this was a decision reached by the church, rather than one imposed upon it by these self-appointed teachers. Verse 3 clearly indicates that it was “the church” which sent this delegation on its way. If not at their initiative (as I believe it was), then at least with their blessing, the delegation is sent to Jerusalem.
3 The impression I get from verses 5 and 6 is that the Pharisees “stood up” at some kind of preliminary hearing or meeting, forcing the issue. The result was a more formal gathering, during which the issue was debated and decided.
4 Carter and Earle remark that the Pharisaic requirements of verse 5 are even more demanding here than in verse 1 (Carter and Earle, p. 210). I disagree. In verse 1 we find the teaching of the Judaisers addressed to the Gentile converts themselves, stressing the necessity of keeping the “custom of Moses,” while in verse 5 the Jerusalem church leaders are told that they must circumcise the Gentile converts and direct them to observe the “Law of Moses.” In verse 1 the Judaisers taught that keeping the Mosaic traditions was necessary because their salvation depended on it. In verse 5 the basis for insisting on circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law was not mentioned. Did the Judaisers tone down their argument when faced with the leaders of the church? It would seem so.
5 The term “sect” is the Greek word hairesis. While later usage has the sense of the transliteration “heresy,” such was not the case in New Testament Greek. Here the term refers to a faction, sect, or party.
6 The same Greek term hairesis is found in Acts 26:5 as is used in Acts 15:5.
7 There is a problem with the text which James cited in verses 16-18. The argument which James puts forward seems to be based primarily on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This version differs from the Massoretic (the original Hebrew) text. Carter and Earle (pp. 214-215) conclude that the problem, at this time, is beyond a satisfactory solution. Certainly we must hold the view of James to be inspired.
Acts 15 may at first seem a strange text in which to study the characteristics of a cult. Although I did not immediately arrive at this conclusion, it slowly dawned on me that the “sect” of the Pharisees (15:5) actually was a cult and is therefore illustrative of today’s cults. The term “sect” is not far removed from that of the term “cult.” The Pharisee “cult” was a small subset of the church in Jerusalem which insisted on the keeping of the law in addition to faith in Christ for salvation (15:1). The term “cult” seems a bit harsh, remember that these Judaizers had effectively redefined the gospel. The seriousness of this error is evident from the strong language Paul used to speak of such teachers and their fate:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing8 you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
Paul called this teaching “another gospel,” which resulted in followers deserting Christ. A curse is pronounced upon those who proclaim this “new gospel.” I think we can safely say that the term “cult” is not only appropriate, but even gracious, in the light of Paul’s appraisal of the Galatian heresy. It is a restatement of the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15.
In the first lesson on Acts 15 we stressed the issue of the purity of the gospel. The Jerusalem Council defined the gospel as promising men salvation by faith in the work of Christ alone, apart from law-keeping. In this lesson we will seek to discover some of the characteristics of the Judaizers which are typical of cults in general. The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, we will seek to clearly identify the cultist in order to avoid him (or her). Secondly, we wish to rid ourselves of unbiblical teaching since the characteristics of the cults are found (in slightly different forms and with more pious, biblical labels) in the true church of our Lord Jesus Christ. We will begin this lesson by defining the term “cult” and study some of the characteristics of a cult as evidenced in the message and methods of the Judaizers. In the final message on Acts 15, I will focus on culture as it relates to Christianity and to the cults.
The term “cult” is certainly loaded with emotion and bias. While we may find it easy to identify particular groups as cults, no group readily uses this term of itself. It is important for us to derive a precise meaning for the term “cult.” Webster defines a cult as, “A system of religious worship or ritual … devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.”9
Ironically, Webster chooses to use nudism as an illustration of a cult. Combining the two parts from Webster’s dictionary provides the following definition of a cult: A cult is a religious group, bound together by their attachment to a person or a principle.
From the vantage point of evangelical Christianity, we can make a more specific definition: A cult is a perversion of the gospel, based upon an unholy devotion to a person, a principle, or both.
It is important for us to understand the difference between what is a “cult” and apostasy. A cult tends to be a rather small group, committed to a few very highly regarded principles, often led by a very “charismatic” (enthusiastic, dynamic, attractive) person. The cultist tends to view everyone outside the group as unbelievers. The cult is usually marked by a very strong, centralized authority. Apostasy is more easily defined in terms of what it is not. Apostasy denies authority, the authority of the Person of Christ and the Scriptures. Apostasy tends to shy away from anything firmly believed, other than the right to believe what you wish. While the cultist sees himself as one of the elect few, the apostate sees himself as one of the many, the majority. Both the cult and apostasy can lead a man to a Christless eternity. The former strongly believes the wrong thing; the latter believes in little or nothing. By this definition, the Unitarian movement would be an apostate religion; the Moonies are a cult.
It is not difficult then to understand why the “sect” of the Pharisees found in Acts 15:5 should be called a cult. Their commitment was more the preservation of Judaism than anything else. In the process of seeking to preserve Judaism, the Judaizers either deliberately or unwittingly perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ from a gospel of salvation by faith to one of faith plus works. As we consider the characteristics of this “sect,” we find that these same earmarks are evident in the cults of subsequent generations.
The men who came to Antioch from Judea were true Christians, members of the strict Pharisee sect (Acts 15:1,5). There are two striking features of these men which seem to be typical of the cultist. First, these men were dogmatic. The message they presented was a mandate: “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (v. 1). The same authoritarian tone can be seen in verse 5: “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Because of their dogmatism, they were unassailed by the strong resistance of Paul and Barnabas (15:2). From verse 5 I conclude that their defense was based upon their Pharisaic interpretation of the Old Testament Law. Verse 24 strongly implies that these men either implied or claimed apostolic approval of their message and ministry. The authority which these men falsely claimed, and their dogmatism implied, seemed convincing to some.
Arrogant dogmatism has always characterized false teaching. Satan did not suggest that God might be wrong in forbidding Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit; he dogmatically denied that Eve would die: “And the serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely shall not die!’” (Gen. 3:4). The same arrogant confidence is to be found in Satan’s counterfeit apostles:
But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11:12-13).
… Wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions (1 Tim. 1:7).
And especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord (2 Pet. 2:10-11).
In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us two things about the false apostles which are very instructive:
For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face. To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison (2 Cor. 11:20-21a).
First, these false apostles were authoritarian, even though they were neither authentic nor authoritative. In contrast, those who are authoritative are meek. Moses was the “meekest man on the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3). Our Lord said that He was “meek and lowly in heart” (Matt. 11:29). Paul could appeal to the Corinthians in “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:1). Paul told Timothy to deal with those who went astray with gentleness (2 Tim. 2:25). Peter taught elders not to “lord it over” those under their care (1 Pet. 5:3).
Second, the false apostles were authoritarian because the Corinthians liked to be “led” that way. The Corinthians loved to be lorded over. They took great pride in the one who led them (cf. also 1 Cor. 1:12). Then, as now, many identified a leader by his “macho,” rather than by his meekness. This is why many of those who choose a cult do so because of the domineering leader by whose authority the cult is held together.
One of the strongest attractions of the cults—authoritarian leadership—is also one of the clearest evidences of error. People are attracted to the cults because they find authoritarian leadership, a leadership which they desire, but which is unbiblical. The difficulty is that all too often truly evangelical churches and causes are led in the same dictatorial fashion as the cults. In an article entitled “The Power Abusers,” Ronald Enroth has written:
The popularity of evangelical gurus, new-age cults, and superpastors says a number of things about our society as well as rank-and-file evangelicalism. First, there are many people in our rapidly changing and often confusing world who have real dependency needs. They are attracted to authoritarian movements, Christian or otherwise, because these movements offer black and white, clear-cut answers (or systematized approaches) to life’s problems. Moreover, the leaders of such organizations convey a sense of solidity, a feeling of being on top of problems, of being in control of the situation. In a word, these groups offer security. For people who have lacked positive structure in their lives, who have difficulty making decisions or resolving conflicts or who are just plain uncertain about the future, these movements/churches/programs are a haven.10
Biblical leadership is as different from cultic leadership as authoritarian leadership is from that which is authoritative. The ministry of our Lord and of His apostles was authoritative, but not authoritarian. Do you remember the response of the crowds after hearing our Lord Jesus?
The result was that when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matt. 7:28-29; cf. also 9:8; Luke 4:32).
As Jesus finished the Sermon on the Mount, the response of the crowd was recorded in the above passage. Jesus had authority; the scribes were authoritarian. What is the difference? It wasn’t that Jesus pounded his fist harder and yelled louder. Indeed, one finds Jesus “preaching” little and “teaching” much. He never demanded that people follow Him.
Jesus found His authority in the Scriptures and in the fact that He was obedient to the will of His Father, while the scribes maintained their authority as the interpreters of the Scriptures. Jesus had authority because He was in submission to authority. He was in submission to the will of the Father. He neither did nor taught anything contrary to the will of His Father (cf. John 8:29, 38, 42, 54). He was also subject to the law (cf. Matt. 17:24-27; Gal. 4:4). He acknowledged the authority of the government, even to carry out execution (John 19:8-11). Jesus even spoke of the scribes and Pharisees as having certain authority (Matt. 23:1-3).
The scribes and the Pharisees, on the other hand, seemed to acknowledge no authority other than their own. As Jesus said, they had “seated themselves in the chair of Moses” (Matt. 23:1). When our Lord’s teaching contradicted that of the scribes and Pharisees, they challenged “by what authority” He acted and taught (Matt. 21:23; Mark 2:7; 11:28; Luke 20:2). In their arrogance, they refused to acknowledge even the present reality of their bondage under Roman rule (John 8:33).
The issue of authority versus authoritarianism was one that our Lord spoke often about with His disciples. Their authority as His apostles was to be evident in a different kind of leadership:
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all” (Mark 10: 42-44).
The kind of leadership our Lord summoned was such that no man would take upon himself the authority, the honor, or the obedience which was due Him:
“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ” (Matt. 23:8-10).
Peter conveyed this same spirit when he exhorted Christians to submit to constituted authority (1 Pet. 1:13,18; 2:1; 5:5), and instructed leaders to be sensitive and gentle in their oversight (3:7; 5:3).
The life and ministry of the Apostle Paul is an excellent example of biblical authority. Paul’s teaching was authoritative, but not authoritarian. It was not based upon fleshly appeal or flashy devices (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1). He did not come in arrogant confidence, but in “fear and trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3). Paul did not insist upon his rights as an apostle (1 Cor. 9:1-18). His ministry was one of self-sacrifice and gentleness (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 2 Thess. 3:6-9). His relationship to the church could be likened to that of a nursing mother to her child (1 Thess. 2:7).
The attitude of men toward authority provides us with a significant clue as to their authenticity as servants of our Lord. It was one of the strongest appeals Paul could make in defending his claim of apostleship against those who were false apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 4; 2 Cor. 11). Those who are authoritarian should be immediately suspect. Those whose authority is based upon the Word of God and which is evidenced by humility and gentleness are much more likely to be authentically Christian.
Unfortunately, some evangelical leaders are authoritarian in their roles as pastors or elders. An authoritarian pastor only conditions the weaker members of the flock to look for a strong central leader who can tell them how to act, make their decisions for them, provide them with security, and do their thinking for them. This practice is wrong, because it is an unbiblical method of leadership.
The structure of Community Bible Chapel is designed to avoid authoritarianism. Since our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of this church, we do not have a pastor who has a centralized authority over the church. We are led by a plurality of elders. The elders’ decisions are not viewed as a direct edict from our Lord, who alone is the head of the church. The aim of our leadership is to point the congregation towards Christ, even as John the Baptist did to those who followed him (cf. John 1:35-37). In effect, the elders are something like sheep dogs, whose task is to keep the sheep following the one true shepherd, Jesus Christ. They do not claim to know God’s will for each member’s life, nor do they wish any to have an unhealthy dependence upon them instead of upon Christ. Their only authority is that which the Word of God itself contains. To the degree that the decisions and leading are biblical, the elders have biblical authority. We believe that our structure is correct, first and foremost, because it is biblical, and secondly, because it is practical. While we do not always succeed, we strive to avoid the excesses and errors which the Bible condemns.
While it is true that there are evangelical leaders who have taken too much authority upon themselves, this often happens because it has been thrust upon them by church members who do not wish to search the Scriptures for themselves, or to find their security only in the Lord. Because of our commitment to a less authoritarian leadership, our elders are often criticized. Sometimes this criticism is correct, especially when they have failed to act decisively in a matter that is their responsibility. However, often criticism is based upon disappointment due to the failure of offering the kind of authoritarian leadership which can be found elsewhere, sometimes in evangelical churches and organizations, and nearly always in a cult.
These men from Judea were not only arrogant and authoritarian, they were also autonomous. They refused to recognize the authority of either Paul or Barnabas. From the fact that the Judaizers persisted in promoting legalism, we can safely assume that at least some of the Pharisee party may have continued to hold and to advocate their heretical view of salvation by faith plus law-keeping. Authoritarian men are also autonomous—they refuse to accept the authority of others.
When the false teachers from Judea arrived at Antioch with the “new gospel,” that the Gentiles could only be saved by faith and law-keeping, Paul and Barnabas immediately confronted them. These men refused to acknowledge the authority of these genuine apostles. In contrast, Paul was not authoritarian in the handling of this error. The church at Antioch made the decision to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem (15:2). It was the apostles in Jerusalem who finally settled the matter. While Paul was a man of authority, he was also under authority—something not seen in the cultists, then or now.
There are several tell-tale signs of this cultic, autonomous spirit which can be found today, as then. First, those who are authoritarian never find it necessary to read or regard the viewpoint of others. They reject the teaching gift of fellow-Christian contemporaries. They reject the insight and wisdom available from commentaries, and they ignore the lessons which can be learned from the history of the church. The end result is that they ignore the concept of the church as the body of Christ by making themselves independent of it. This is often a characteristic of those who possess gifts which are more prominent (cf. 1 Cor. 12:20-27).
A second indication of an autonomous spirit is the creation of a vocabulary which is not biblical, but which is known only to the “elect” who sit under their ministry. Only the initiated understand these “gnostic” labels, and so one who is limited to mere biblical terminology is left outside the circle of those who can comprehend, at least until he or she has attended long enough to interpret this in-house jargon.
It is my conviction that biblical concepts are best conveyed by biblical terminology. The only reason for creating new terminology is to set apart the teaching of one man (or a small minority, such as a cult) so that it is distinct from the teaching of others. Let us leave the truth of God’s Word to the terms which God Himself has chosen.
There is a hybrid version of this same autonomous spirit which is subtly incorporated in the expression “independent Bible church.” Many of us use this label to describe our church, and there is a sense in which this is true. We are a church which is based upon the Bible. We are independent of denominational ties and affiliations. However, a grave danger exists as well. We dare not be independent of all others in our interpretation of Scripture, in a way that suggests that only we have found the truth and proclaim it. We dare not be independent of other churches in our sense of obligation to them. The distinguishing mark of Christians and of churches is their unity, not their independence. Thus, the church at Antioch expressed its unity with the church in Jerusalem in several ways. It accepted Barnabas when he was sent to them (Acts 11:22-24). It sent money to the “brethren in Judea” when word of the famine was prophesied (Acts 11:27-30). It also appealed to the church leaders in Jerusalem when the gospel was challenged by the Judaizers (Acts 15:1-3). The autonomy of the local church is a doctrine which needs to be very carefully defined and practiced. It should hardly be the watchword. Unity is the distinguishing mark of the church which Paul consistently stressed (cf. Eph. 4).
In addition to the arrogant dogmatism and the autonomous spirit of the false teachers who had troubled the church at Antioch, there was the further ingredient of their anonymity. These men were traveling teachers like many in that day. They had come down from Judea, and they had given the impression that their authority was either apostolic or at least sanctioned by the apostles in Jerusalem—something quickly denied by the apostles in their letter to the Gentile churches (Acts 15:24).
The ultimate basis for Paul’s authority was his apostleship (cf. Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1-2). The defense of his apostleship was frequently based upon his life and ministry among the churches to whom he ministered (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 1 Cor. 1:17–2:5; 2 Cor. 3:1-4; 6:1-13; 1 Thess. 1-2). A ministry cannot be isolated from the life of the one who ministers. Therefore, the pastoral epistles prescribe the qualifications of elders and deacons in terms of a man’s character.
While a man of known character occasionally falls into error (cf. Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim. 5:19-20; 3 John 9), false teachers tend to be itinerant and thus the character of their life and ministry is undocumented. The false teachers detected by the Ephesian church seemed to be of this latter variety (Rev. 2:2). I am quite frankly amazed and disappointed by those who follow after leaders who have charisma, but not character. They may claim great miracles, but these are seldom documented. They may have a glorious testimony, but it can never thoroughly be corroborated. In contrast it is significant that the Scriptures list very specific requirements for church leaders (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). I would like to suggest to you that the cultist can most easily be detected by his lifestyle. Look at his bank account or in his bedroom, and you will often see the discrepancy between what is taught and what is practiced.
Harold Bussell speaks of the cult-like practice of putting the pastor and church leaders on a pedestal, giving the congregation the impression that they live their lives above the hum-drum level of the mediocrity of Christianity.11 It is little wonder that so many Christians seek a seminary education and try to leave secular work for that which is “spiritual” (full-time Christian work), thinking that those who are thus occupied have a holier life as a result. When “professional Christians” give the impression that they live somehow above the temptations and failures of mortal men, they lead many astray and cause some who sincerely desire holiness to become candidates for the cults.
Bussell therefore urges pastors and Christian leaders to be open and honest about their own failures and frustrations in their spiritual walk. I agree wholeheartedly, except that some churches are not willing to have such a pastor on their staff, nor are congregations willing to admit that their leaders have weaknesses, too.
Fortunately, that is not the case at Community Bible Chapel. I am grateful to each member of our congregation for having realistic expectations of its staff and elders. The cultist will make much of this honesty, however, for he will claim to live his (or her) life above such mediocrity. No such minimal level of spirituality for him! Those gullible enough to believe him will flock to his group to find that higher level of spiritual perfection. The point I am making here is that while we need to be truthful in every area of our spiritual lives, this does not guarantee against deception or error, for Satan would just as easily distort truth as to emphasize error.
Through the diverse message of the various cults, Satan masterfully markets his error. He learned, long before McDonalds, that “have it your way” is an appealing slogan. While there is only one way into God’s heaven, there are any number of ways to the Hell prepared for Satan and his followers. We should never think that there is only one (or a few) erroneous doctrinal deviations. There are many. For those who are inclined toward asceticism, Satan fashions a system which is legalistic. For those who are hedonistic (pleasure oriented), Satan offers a system based on liberty. In either case, it is error.
One of the dependable features of any cult is its distortion of the truth of the gospel, moving either in the direction of legalism (faith plus a system of rules to keep) or libertinism (no rules at all!). The cult of the Pharisee party which sought to mislead the saints in the church at Antioch tampered with the gospel by making salvation a matter of faith and works.
The message of the cults always tends toward narrowing the elect to their own ranks, while excluding all others. Let me illustrate what I mean. One cult leader I heard recently spoke of the terrible sin of those who make salvation available to nearly anyone. Such people, he said, widened the door of salvation. Believing anything sincerely is not sufficient for salvation. As I mentioned above, those who hold such doctrines are not cultic, so much as they are apostate. The cult leader was right to oppose the widening of the door of salvation. He even quoted the words of our Lord to justify his own position:
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).
The difficulty with the cultist’s use of these words is that they are applied in such a way as to make the door of salvation too narrow. They pervert this passage by applying it only to their little group, who are the only “elect” who will enter into God’s heaven. The Judaizers in Acts 15, for example, felt that the door of faith was too wide, since it gave entrance to both Jews and Gentiles. They were trying to narrow the “door” to make it only a Jewish gate. If the Gentiles were to be saved, let them become Jewish proselytes. This is cultic.
While the message of each cult will differ greatly from other cults, each will redefine the gospel in such a way as to narrow the doorway to heaven so that only their particular group can enter in. We should expect error to be taught as truth in so many different forms that those of every temperament and every preference will find a false “truth” to believe. Those who are most vocal about error on one extreme are often guilty of error at the other.
Apostasy tends to expand the arena of truth to the point where almost any belief structure is acceptable. The cultist turns in the opposite direction. His doctrines usually include a very narrow spectrum. The cultist tends to capitalize on certain doctrines, a fact which is in accordance with Webster’s definition of a cult. For the Judaizer, the Old Testament law was the limit of his depth of field. In Acts 15:1, Luke was able to sum up their creed in a sentence. The narrowness of their theology is camouflaged by the alleged “depth” of the things they teach. This is only a facade, for their gnostic truth, hidden from the “hoi polloi,” was mere mysticism and speculation (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3-7). In contrast, Paul could tell the Ephesian elders that he had taught “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27).
Here is a very real danger for authentic Christianity, as well as a warning regarding the counterfeit cults. Evangelical churches, organizations, and institutions are often perceived to be in competition with their fellow-churches or organizations. Consequently, we tend to stress our distinctives, rather than those things which we hold in common with orthodox Christianity. Our emphasis, then, falls upon matters which are more incidental than those which are fundamental. Whether this be prophecy, spiritual gifts, or the sovereignty of God, let us remember that “all Scripture is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16).
While the message of the cults can vary greatly, their methods are incredibly similar. In speaking of the methods of the cultists, Enroth states, “The commonality of certain means to certain ends is so striking, however, that one is tempted to conclude that conspiratorial forces are at work. The tactics and techniques seem to be taken from the same mold.”12
First, the cults are deceptive. For the cultist, the end justifies the means. The cultist’s cause is so great and the consequences of not joining the cult are so severe, that unethical methods are justified.
The deception of the Judaizers in Acts 15 is apparent. I see a subtle but significant change in the message preached by the Judaizers in verse 1 and their position which was defined and defended before the apostles in verse 5. I believe that there was deliberate deception involved. These false teachers did not tell the apostles that keeping the custom (v. 1, rather than the “Law” of v. 5) of Moses (which would include the traditions of the Pharisees), was necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles. They simply told them that it was necessary for the Gentiles to be instructed to keep the law of Moses. If this deception is not clear, it is obvious that these men who came down from Judea either stated or implied that their preaching was merely an echo of the doctrine of the apostles in Jerusalem from where they had come. Therefore it was necessary for the leaders of the Jerusalem church to renounce these men and their teachings as unauthorized and unbiblical (v. 24).
The cultist has little difficulty justifying deception, even though he may readily accuse his opponents of this very evil. Those who fall into the cults seldom do so on the basis of what that cult actually practices or believes, but rather on what they perceive it is.
Lest you and I become proud, we are often guilty of deception as well. The “religious surveys” of not long ago were hardly what they appeared to be. They were a device to enter into a conversation designed to then lead into a witnessing opportunity. Even the gospel message itself is sometimes modified so that it will appeal to an unbeliever, but modified in a way that is not entirely truthful. Let us listen to the words of the Apostle Paul.
For we are not like many, peddling [lit. corrupting] the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God (2 Cor. 2:17).
But we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).
God’s truth should not be “peddled” in a deceptive way.
The cults attack the church, seeking to convert its members, especially those who have not yet come to the “full truth.” Do you notice in Acts 15 that the Judaizers did not go about as Paul and Barnabas, preaching the gospel to the lost and planting churches? Instead they went to the church, seeking to save its members from the true gospel and to convert them to what was another gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6-10). Paul warned the Ephesian elders that this would happen, even by their own members:
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30; cf. Matt. 24:24; 2 Tim. 2:14-18; Titus 1:10-11).
The cultist has an evangelistic zeal to convert others, but his key target is often those who have already been born again and are members of a church. This should come as no surprise, for the cultist is peddling perverted Christianity, and his principle target must therefore be one who has come to faith. A distorted gospel has a greater appeal to a believer than to the unbeliever.
Some of us who have been exposed to consistent Bible teaching may feel that we are immune to the attraction of the cults, since we have a greater maturity. A. W. Tozer warns us that it can be the zealous Christian who is especially vulnerable to the cultist:
Strange as it may seem, the danger today is greater for the fervent Christian than for the lukewarm and the self-satisfied. The seeker after God’s best things is eager to hear anyone who offers a way by which he can obtain them. He longs for some new experience, some elevated view of truth, some operation of the Spirit that will raise him above the dead level of religious mediocrity he sees all around him, and for this reason he is ready to give a sympathetic ear to the new and the wonderful in religion, particularly if it is presented by someone with an attractive personality and a reputation for superior godliness.13
The cults always pervert the Scriptures. A wise pastor friend of mine once told me, “The cults are either the Bible plus or the Bible minus.” The cultist either adds to the Scriptures or he will subtract from them. Often, the cultist will do both. The Pharisee party which was represented in Antioch and the Jerusalem Council tended to focus only upon the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Law. It was not by accident that James chose to prove his point from the Prophets (Acts 15:15-18), citing from the Book of Amos specifically. We should learn from the apostles that the Bible must be interpreted as a whole, rather than individual verses being used as prooftexts.
Distorting biblical revelation is one of the most common methods the cultists use to establish their doctrines. To tamper with the Scriptures requires some basis of authority. Often, the cult leader must resort to the claim of apostolic authority. That is why the false teachers of the New Testament are so frequently referred to as “false prophets” or “false apostles” (Matt. 24:11,24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Cor. 11:13; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 4:1; cf. Rev. 2:2). Such a position enables the false teacher to proclaim a “new revelation.” One method is to claim a “new revelation” because these are the last days. A. W. Tozer warns:
Over the last half-century quite a number of unscriptural notions have gained acceptance among Christians by claiming that they were among the truths that were to be revealed in the last days. To be sure, say the advocates of this latter-daylight theory, Augustine did not know, Luther did not, John Knox, Wesley, Finney and Spurgeon did not understand this; but greater light has now shined upon God’s people and we of these last days have the advantage of fuller revelation. … The Lord is getting His Bride ready for the marriage supper of the Lamb. We should all yield to this new movement of the Spirit. So they tell us.
The truth is that the Bible does not teach that there will be new light and advanced spiritual experiences in the latter days; it teaches the exact opposite. Nothing in Daniel or the New Testament epistles can be tortured into advocating the idea that we of the end of the Christian era shall enjoy light that was not known at its beginning. Beware of any man who claims to be wiser than the apostles or holier than the martyrs of the Early Church. The best way to deal with him is to rise and leave his presence. You cannot help him and he surely cannot help you.14
We should expect these new revelations because Paul tells us that in the end times men shall turn aside from what they have already learned, hoping to find some falsehood which suits their fancy:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
The Bible tells us many of the ways in which men will attempt to pervert the Word of God. One method is outright denial. Thus, Satan denied God’s warning that Adam and Eve would die if they partook of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:4). False teachers will deny the Savior of whom the Scriptures speak (2 Pet. 2:1). Others will distort or dilute the Scriptures (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 2 Pet. 3:16). Some will add to them or take away from them (cf. Rev. 22:18-19). Still other will doubt the Word, scoffing at its promises or warnings (2 Pet. 3:3-4). Jim Sire, in his excellent book, Scripture Twisters: Twenty Ways the Cults Misread the Bible, describes some of the most common ways the Scriptures are misread. I would strongly recommend this book.
It is difficult to underestimate the importance of the Scriptures to our spiritual lives. It is by them that the message of the gospel is made known to men (2 Tim. 3:15; James 1:21). By them we are sanctified and equipped for ministry (John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:4). It is for this reason that Satan will make an all-out effort to deny or distort the truth of the Word of God.
There are several passages which provide us with principles which will help us to avoid Satan’s schemes in regard to the perversion of God’s Word. In 2 Peter 1, Peter, knowing that his days were numbered, reminded his readers of those truths which they had already learned (cf. vv. 12-14). It is not “new” revelation which they needed so much as to remember and practice the teaching which they had already learned. The same emphasis is found in Paul’s final epistle to Timothy, where his parting words of exhortation are recorded (cf. 1:13-14; 2:2-3; 3:14-17; 4:1-5). These verses indicate the most likely error is that men will turn from the truth they have once learned. It is not “new” revelation which is needed by Christians at the end of the age (or any other time), but to remember and to practice the old.
Peter stressed two other truths regarding the Word of God in his second epistle. The Word of God is a certain word, a Word to which God Himself gave testimony, and of this testimony Peter was a witness. The Scriptures are a sure word from God, not cleverly devised tales (2 Pet. 1:15-19). Furthermore, since God’s revelation was given to men through those who were guided by the Holy Spirit, the interpretation of God’s Word should never be novel and unknown to the Christian community at large (1:20-21). We should expect that a proper interpretation of God’s Word has the confirming testimony of godly men through the ages. No new or novel interpretation is to be expected, just as no new revelation is expected.
In John 16:13 our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. While this promise applied primarily to the apostles, we are given assurance elsewhere that the Holy Spirit will guide us as to what God’s Word means:
These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for any one to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him (1 John 2:26-27).
The false teachers who seek to deceive the saints go beyond the Scriptures, ultimately denying the Savior (cf. 1 John 2:18-23). John would have us know that we do not need to have the “inspired insight which provides a whole new understanding of the Scriptures,” which the cultist claims. The Holy Spirit is able to teach us God’s Word without the additional “lens” of the cultist, usually the result of his claim of additional revelation from God.
This does not contradict the instruction of the New Testament that some men have the gift of teaching and can help us better understand God’s Word. John is saying that anyone whose teaching is alleged to open up a “whole new world” of revelation is suspect. Those who are gifted teachers should only motivate and facilitate our study of the Bible. It is ultimately the Holy Spirit who is our teacher.
In conclusion I want to tell you how seriously we take the matter of teaching the Scriptures at Community Bible Chapel. Each week I spend approximately 30 hours reading, studying, praying, and writing the messages which I deliver on Sunday. I do this because it is my personal priority in ministry, and also the priority of the elders. Every Thursday morning several men (including two other elders) meet to discuss the passage which I will preach, along with an evaluation of the sermon from the previous week. I am very hesitant to include anything in my sermon which has been questioned during this weekly preaching seminar. In addition to the seminar, a very capable student of Scripture edits the printed manuscript before it is printed and distributed.
It has been my purpose in preaching to reveal the process of my Bible study as well as the product of it. This is because I am committed to the responsibility of each believer to study the Word of God for himself and to be subject, in the final analysis, to God’s Word, not merely to the interpretation of a single man. I strive to preach each passage according to its mood in context. I attempt to be as dogmatic on each point as the text is, and as it is confirmed by the rest of the Bible. I make an earnest effort to tell you what I do not know, as well as what I think I know. Many would like me to be authoritarian at points where I, in good conscience before God and His revealed Word, cannot be. I realize that the cultist has a ready answer for every question. I do not.
It is the desire of the elders of this church that you will become a diligent student of the Word of God, considering and faithfully comparing what is taught to what the Word of God says. This, we believe, is the responsibility of every believer-priest. We cannot, we dare not, place a preacher between you and God as the mediator and mouthpiece of God.
May God grant you the desire and the diligence to be the student of Scripture He has commanded you to be.
8 The same expression “disturbing” found in Galatians 1:7 is that used by the apostles of the Judaizers of Acts 15:1, 5 who were troubling the Gentile saints in Antioch (Acts 15:24).
9 Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1957), p. 358.
10 Ronald M. Enroth, “The Power Abusers,” Eternity, (October, 1979):23, as quoted by Harold L. Bussell, Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), pp. 65-66.
11 Cf. “You Just Have to Hear Our Pastor,” chapter 6, Unholy Devotion, pp. 61-72.
12 Ronald Enroth, Youth, Brainwashing, and the Extremist Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977), p. 12.
13 The Best of A. W. Tozer, compiled by Warren W. Wiersbe (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 182.
A number of years ago as I sat on the platform waiting to preach, my friend who was doing the morning introductions leaned over and with a sigh whispered in my ear, “I’ve just been in the high school class, and the whole hour they were playing guitars and singing.” After the final hymn, my friend stood to introduce me by saying, “At this church we always study through the Scriptures book by book, chapter by chapter.” These preliminary remarks unnerved me, since on this particular Sunday I had chosen to depart from my normal pattern of systematic exposition! My text was 2 Samuel 6, the account of David dancing before the ark of God, much to the dismay of his wife, Michal. I had purposed to say that in the matter of church music, we are all too often like Michal, too proud to let down our hair and worship with music which is enthusiastic. Perhaps you can understand how uneasy I felt as I began my sermon on that Sunday morning. The people in the audience had conflicting views about church music. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issue. Music is not taken lightly because it plays a significant role in our worship. More than one church has been split over a matter so insignificant as the presence or absence of a piano.
I must honestly confess that I am more uneasy about this particular message than I was about my message on 2 Samuel 6. Then, I spoke only about music and its role in worship, but today, I am addressing music as an example of a broader category—culture. At first glance the subject of culture may seem innocuous, but this is far from the truth. One treads on very thin ice when addressing the subject of the relationship of Christianity to culture. There are several reasons for my apprehension concerning this subject. First, culture is something in which we are immersed and consequently we are rarely conscious of it. It is something akin to asking a fish what it thinks about water, or a bird about the atmosphere. Culture is the atmosphere in which we live without consciously thinking about it. Did you think about why you drove on the right-hand side of the road on the way to church instead of on the left as people of other countries do? Did you think about sitting beside your wife as you entered the auditorium, instead of segregating men and women as practiced in some churches in India? These examples may help you to see that we don’t think a great deal about culture—our own culture at least. We are only aware of our cultural practices when we are confronted with opposing customs of other cultures. Culture is assimilated, almost by osmosis, not by instruction. Since cultural traditions are observed without consideration, we tend to accept them without thinking of them.
Second, culture is often intertwined with strong feelings of right and wrong which we have held as Christian convictions, rather than as personal or societal preferences. The use of alcohol and tobacco, the enjoyment of the theater or of television, and the issue of dancing are just a few issues often included in the list of Christian “don’ts.” A study of the history of the church reveals that these particular prohibitions have not characterized Christian values with any degree of consistency. The reformers, to whom we appeal in matters of soteriology, had no problem with smoking or drinking. It was only some years later that these were considered sins and added to the list of Christian taboos. At times, even coffee and tea were on the list of forbidden items for Christians.
Third, culture is not universal. We know that, of course, at least in principle. We expect people from foreign countries to think, to act and to dress differently. Yet we are not always willing to recognize different cultures, even within our church. One significant contributing factor to the so-called “generation gap” is the difference of culture which exists between these age groups. If you don’t believe me, listen to the music which “turns on” your children, as opposed to what you enjoy. Lawrence Welk is not the name of the game for any but the geriatric generation.
If I am correct in concluding that culture is often unconscious and yet a matter of strong conviction, you can see why I approach this subject with fear and trembling. When a matter is discussed about which people have very strong feelings and yet have not really seriously contemplated, there is bound to be some reaction. In light of this, I ask that you make a sincere effort to withhold judgment until you have considered what I am about to say, and until you have had the time to carefully search the Scriptures on these matters. If you cannot agree with my conclusions, I will not be offended, so long as you have been honest with the Scriptures and with yourself.
On the surface, culture may hardly seem to be an issue in the debate between the apostles and the Judaizers in Acts 15. Indeed, culture is not the issue for the issue faced by the Jerusalem Council was the gospel.15 The implications of the decision of the Council, however, concern culture and its relationship to Christianity. There is a great deal of difference between an issue and its implications. For instance, the issue in the Supreme Court Case of Roe v. Wade was whether or not an unwed mother, pregnant due to rape, had the right to an abortion under the Constitution of the United States. The implications of that decision went much farther, however, giving any woman in the United States the right to have an abortion for virtually any reason.
In our first lesson on Acts 15 we dealt with the issue of the definition of the gospel. Renouncing the “gospel” of the Judaizers, the Jerusalem Council concluded that Gentiles were not subject to the Old Testament law as a condition for salvation. The Gentiles, like the Jews, were saved by faith alone. The law had never been able to save, but only to condemn. The principle of grace excluded law-keeping as a condition for salvation. The salvation of the Gentiles was regarded as consistent with the words of the Old Testament prophets (Acts 15:6-19).
While the Gentile converts were not required to keep the law and to adopt a Jewish lifestyle, Jewish Christians were not prohibited from living according to the law as long as they understood this did not contribute in any way to their salvation. Consequently, the Jewish Christians, including Paul, continued to observe the law, and in so doing, upheld their Jewish culture (cf. Acts 21:24). In no way was this contrary to the gospel or the decision of the Council.
The four prohibitions of verses 20 and 29 are considered a necessary obligation for the Gentiles,16 yet they fail to adequately summarize the mass of New Testament Scriptures pertaining to the godly lifestyle required of Gentile Christians. Such matters were not intended to be taught here and included in the letter sent by the Jerusalem Council, but were rather the subject of the epistles:
This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, … But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Eph. 4:17, 20-24).
If the four prohibitions are not conditions for salvation, and they are not the totality of God’s standards for Gentile conduct, what was the purpose of the Council in including them here? The answer to this question is the key to our message. The gospel of Jesus Christ saved both Jews and Gentiles and brought them together in a new and unique way, removing the barriers which had once existed between them (Eph. 2:11-22). Neither Jews nor Gentiles were compelled to forsake their cultures to become Christians. Since both were to worship in harmony and unity, each must make concessions to the cultural sensitivities of the other. The four prohibitions specify the areas of Gentile conduct which would be most offensive to the scruples of their Jewish brethren.
While the cultural element is recognized by many Bible scholars, there is some disagreement as to what is specifically forbidden by these four prohibitions. The first prohibition is literally “the pollution’s of idols” (v. 20), which is called “things offered to idols” in verse 29. Partaking of “things offered to idols” was identified as a matter of Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8. However in Acts 15, these foods were forbidden to the Gentile Christians because they were an abomination to the Jewish saint and therefore they should be avoided. In later times, after Jerusalem had been sacked by the Roman army, there was less need for concern for the scruples of the Jewish Christians.
The second practice, “fornication,” may refer to various forms of sexual immorality which would therefore be wrong for Gentiles and Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-20). The expression “fornication” could also refer to the Gentile practice of marrying a close relative, which the Old Testament law forbade (cf. Lev. 18). Thirdly, the forbidden “blood” may have been the blood of animals, which the Gentiles sometimes drank, but it might also refer to cruelty, murder and violence (cf. Gen. 9:4-6). Finally, “things strangled” would most likely refer to the eating of animals which were killed by strangling, which was forbidden by the Old Testament law (cf. Lev. 17:10-14; Deut. 12:16, 23, 25).17
The changes required of Peter in order for him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10) were accepted by the Jerusalem church leaders in Acts 11. Now, in Acts 15, the Gentiles are told what they must forsake in order to have unity in fellowship and worship with Jewish believers. Given the scruples of the Jewish Christians, Gentile saints had to be sensitive to them, especially in the areas of worship, eating, and sexual morality. The Gentiles were instructed to be careful to avoid these practices since they were the areas of greatest sensitivity for the conscientious Jew.
The Council’s decision, therefore, established a biblical precedent concerning the relationship between culture and Christianity. The Jewish culture (as prescribed by the Old Testament law) was not essential for salvation. To be saved, one needed only to believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, could continue to practice their culture in any way that was not inconsistent with biblical morality. To have fellowship with those of other cultures, each Christian must be willing to refrain from his cultural liberties which prove to be either a cause of stumbling or a hindrance to fellowship.
There is another way in which the gospel is to govern the practice of our culture. Our culture should not become a hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel. Paul’s practice is a model for every Christian:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, though not being myself under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak, I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow-partaker of it (1 Cor. 9:19-23).
To Paul, as to all of the apostles, the gospel was primary, and culture was secondary. Gentiles did not have to adopt the Jewish culture to be saved for the gospel did not require it. Neither Jews nor Gentiles were compelled to forsake their culture, as long as the gospel was not compromised by it. Whenever the gospel could be promoted by adapting to the culture of another, the preaching of the gospel required such change. In addition to the implications of the gospel which govern culture, culture is also an important consideration because of its impact on the gospel.
The decision of the Jerusalem Council was the watershed of world evangelization in the Book of Acts. Once it was determined that the Jewish culture was not an essential part of the gospel, the gospel was freed from its cultural bonds and seen to be a universal message of salvation to all men. While this was a change that required a total reorientation on the part of Jewish Christians, it was not a change without considerable precedent, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament gospels.
When God created the nation Israel and brought them out of Egypt, He gave them the Mosaic Law in order to provide them with a standard of righteousness, with a promise of redemption, and with a prescription for a culture which would isolate them from the godless paganism of the heathen nations around them. When Israel was outside of the land, it was not possible to live completely under the law for they were not able to offer sacrifices in the prescribed places, nor were they able to isolate themselves from the cultures of their captors.
The first example of this is found in Joseph. When he realized that he would live out his life and die in Egypt, he chose to adopt much of the culture of the Egyptians. Before Joseph stood in Pharaoh’s presence, he shaved (Gen. 41:14), which was culturally very significant. A beard was highly regarded in Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 10:4-5), but in Egypt it was not. Joseph revealed wisdom by adapting to the culture of his day, yet in a way that did not violate any biblical principle. A beard was really a matter of culture, not of creed. By taking the Egyptian’s language, their dress, and even an Egyptian wife (cf. Gen. 41:45), Joseph identified himself with the Egyptians in a way that made his ministry more acceptable, yet without any sacrifice of biblical principle.
Perhaps Daniel is the most striking example of cultural concession in the Old Testament. In Daniel 1 we find the prophet and his three Hebrew friends taken captive to Babylon. We know these men best in terms of what they refused to do. All four refused to partake of the king’s choice food and wine (Dan. 1:8-16), which seemed to be associated with idolatrous worship. (In this case, it would be consistent with the prohibitions of Acts 15:20, 29.) Daniel refused to cease praying (Dan. 6), and his three friends would not bow down to the golden image (Dan. 3). In focusing our attention on what these four men refused to do we sometimes fail to take note of the cultural concession they were willing make. They were submissive to the king’s requirements by becoming educated in the schools of Babylon for three years, and of serving the king as advisors. These men, even in their youth, had the God-given wisdom to discern between what was culturally acceptable and what was not. They were able to faithfully serve God and to be witnesses to Him, even in a pagan land, because they could discern the elements of that culture which were an offense to God. Perhaps they were aware of the words of the prophet Jeremiah:
Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, “Build houses and live in them; and plant gardens, and eat their produce. Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare” (Jer. 29:4-7).
In the Old Testament, adapting to the pagan cultures of Egypt and Babylon was the exception, not the rule. So long as there was a theocracy, the Old Testament law prescribed the culture of the people of God. Those Gentiles who desired to trust in the God of Israel placed themselves under His law, and thus became Jewish proselytes. With the coming of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, the dramatic changes recognized by the Jerusalem Council were hinted at but not fully comprehended. Our Lord’s teaching about being “salt” and “light” (Matt. 5:13-16) could only apply as the gospel penetrated the various cultures of the Gentiles. When John recorded that our Lord “had to pass through Samaria” (John 4:4), He intended for us to look back and to understand that the Lord Jesus was foreshadowing the evangelization of the Gentiles. Mark 7 centers around the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees over their traditions. These words of Jesus to His disciples were later understood in light of the events of the Book of Acts (Acts 10, 11) and the decision of the Jerusalem Council:
And He said to them, “Are you too so uncomprehending? Do you not see that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19).
More than any other book of the Bible, Acts enables us to see the gradual unveiling of the separation of culture from Christianity. Our Lord’s statements and actions with regard to the Gentiles never registered with the disciples. Consequently, when He had risen from the grave and was about to ascend into heaven, their primary interest was in the coming of His kingdom (Acts 1:6). Our Lord’s response not only put off the question about the coming of His kingdom, but it suggested the universal proclamation of the gospel (Acts 1:8). Undaunted, the disciples hastened to appoint a twelfth apostle, no doubt to fill the vacancy so that they would be able to sit on the twelve promised thrones (cf. Matt. 19:28).
With the filling of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost came the gift of tongues, which was a sign of the pouring out of God’s Spirit on all mankind (Acts 2:17, 21). It was not until the Jerusalem church came under intense persecution that the Christians engaged in missionary activity (Acts 8:1ff.). Peter’s vision and his commission to go to the house of Cornelius, with the resulting testimony of the Holy Spirit to the conversion of these Gentiles (Acts 10), resulted in an inquiry on the part of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1ff.). Even when all had been persuaded that God had chosen to save the Gentiles (11:18), only a few noble souls from Cyprus and Cyrene preached to the Gentiles, resulting in the church at Antioch (Acts 11:19-30). From this church Barnabas and Paul were sent out as missionaries to the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-3), and upon their return, the debate over the necessity of circumcising the Gentiles arose (Acts 15:1-2). When the gospel was defined as distinct from any obligation upon Gentile converts to keep the law, and when the issue of culture was seen as subordinate to the gospel, the evangelization of the Gentile world became predominate as recorded in the remainder of the Book of Acts. The book, which begins with a Jewish church, thus ends with Paul’s explanation of the Jews’ rejection of the gospel and the salvation of the Gentiles (Acts 28:24-29).
The universality of the gospel necessitated a distinction between Christianity and culture. Christianity can exist in any culture, but each culture will have certain beliefs, values, or practices which contradict Christianity and therefore must be laid aside. The Jewish emphasis on external righteousness by outward conformity to rules had to be put aside, for salvation is obtained by faith alone, apart from works. The Gentile practices of idolatry and immorality also had to be rejected as contrary to one’s calling in Christ. Any conformity to culture which hinders the preaching of the gospel should also be forsaken. It all seems quite simple, doesn’t it? However history reveals the difficulty which the saints have had in consistently relating Christianity to culture.
Historically, the church has struggled to identify with contemporary culture without becoming either isolated from it or identical to it. The church has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to relate to contemporary culture without creating a counter-culture and without being consumed by secular culture. Needless to say, the church has not always succeeded in walking the tight rope between these two extremes.
In the early church at Jerusalem, the Jewish culture was strongly opposed to Christianity. The greatest danger was posed by the Judaistic Christians who sought to impose the Jewish culture on the Gentile believers. When Christianity was proclaimed among the Gentiles, we can see the struggle which the churches (like the one in Corinth) had in keeping the world out of the church. As greater opposition from Rome was focused against the Christians, this danger diminished for a time.
When the church pronounces contemporary culture corrupt, it seeks to eradicate that culture from Christianity by creating a counter-culture of its own. True Christians are instructed to adopt this counter-culture in place of their old lifestyles. When the church is powerful enough, it may seek to impose this “Christian culture” on society as a whole. Such was the case in the second century when Roman government was wedded to religion.
With the coming of Constantine, the church entered into a new era. The state which had once persecuted Christianity now professed it and even sought to promote it. The church thus had the opportunity to impose what it considered to be a “Christian culture” upon all Roman citizens. The church sought to return, once more, to a theocracy, like that to which ancient Israel had formerly been subject. This produced at best a feigned obedience to what was conceived to be the law of God. Richard Lovelace describes some of the legalism which ensued:
Hard-line fundamentalists like Tertullian ruled out many intellectual activities: the theater (because of its origins in pagan worship), the dance (because it might inflame ill-controlled sexual passions) and cosmetics (if God meant you to smell like a flower He would have given you a crop of them on your head!).18
The expansion of Roman rule and religion extended to other lands. This introduced the opposite error of the Christian faith. The church adopted the cultural corruptions of the subdued nations:
The missionary expansion of this modified theocracy was a genuine work of God’s grace, and yet it left the worst features of converted cultures intact or assimilated them into Catholicism while covering them over with a surface conformity to Roman ritual, theology and governmental hierarchy.19
The tension between resisting contemporary culture to the point of isolation and accepting it to the point of total identification (including its evils) can be seen throughout the remainder of the church’s history.20 The Reformers reacted to the legislated morality of the Catholic Church. They, along with the Puritans, gratefully imbibed in alcohol and enjoyed tobacco. The temperance movement came later, a reaction to abuses of alcohol related to the Industrial Revolution. The Revivalists of the 1820’s and 1830’s carried temperance even further—to total abstinence. With Revivalist Charles Finney came the addition of coffee and tea to the list of “forbidden fruits.”
The important thing to observe as we consider the way the church has historically sought to relate to culture is that its actions have been the result of its understanding of the gospel. Lovelace observes:
Apparently if the church has not fully appropriated the life and redemptive benefits of Jesus Christ, it will inevitably be subject to two forms of re-enculturation. Either it will suffer destructive enculturation, absorbing elements of its host cultures which it should discern and suppress as unholy, or it will try to re-create once again the Old Testament protective enculturation, fusing itself with certain aspects of Christianized culture until the gospel is thought to be indissolubly wedded to those cultural expressions.21
The decision of the Jerusalem Council should thus be seen in light of its cultural implications. The apostles’ understanding of the gospel compelled them to address the issue of culture. So too we must be very careful that our comprehension of the gospel is correct and that our response to culture is consistent with the gospel.
I believe there is a definite relationship between the cult and the contemporary culture. Most often the cultist utterly rejects the culture of his day, reacting by creating a kind of counter-culture. The Jesus Movement, for example, was based upon a rejection of the culture of middle-class America. In its place this movement provided a religion which substituted a middle-class culture for a counter-culture which rejected materialism and middle-class values. If I am not mistaken you will find that virtually every cult has a very carefully defined culture which it seeks to promote as a cure for the contemporary culture of its day.
This was at least a part of the heresy of the Judaizers in Acts 15. They could not conceive of Christianity in any other cultural expression than that of Judaism. As a result of their fervent devotion to the preservation of this culture, they perverted the gospel.
So it is, I am convinced, with every cult. The cult is either born out of a reaction to a contemporary culture or out of a desire to transplant another culture into the current culture of that day. In order to do so, the gospel is distorted and the convert’s conformity to the new culture becomes the measure of his “faith.” To the extent that the Christian church loses sight of the power of the gospel to save and to sanctify a man or woman in any culture, it will pervert the gospel and will seek to establish another culture. Conformity to this lifestyle becomes the measure of one’s righteousness.
I have come to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential for us as Christians to understand the relationship between culture and Christianity. Let me suggest some of the ways culture affects Christianity.
(1) Culture plays a crucial role in foreign missions. Western missions (by this I mean the missionary endeavors of the churches in the United States) have often been greatly hindered by the cultural blunders of the missionaries and their sending agencies. Failing to distinguish between what is cultural and what is Christian, missionaries have often attempted to transplant American Christianity to foreign soil, rather than to take the gospel and allow it to develop within the indigenous culture of the people. Christianity has often been characterized as paternalistic and capitalistic. Churches are built in Western style, with Western monies. Those who are converted dress as Westerners. All too often, native leaders are sent to the United States to receive a Western education. Control of the missionaries and of the newly planted churches stays in Western hands.
The missionary activity of the Apostle Paul was quite different. He was seldom supported by funds from outside churches, but worked with his own hands, demonstrating the proper Christian lifestyle and values (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 2 Thess. 3:6-15). Paul seldom stayed in any one place too long. He encouraged the development of leadership among those converted, and he appointed those who were qualified to serve as elders and deacons (or had one like Timothy do so, cf. 1 Tim. 3; Titus 1). The newly planted churches were not dependent upon outside leadership or funds.
I do not wish to pose as an authority on foreign missions, for I am not. I have had opportunity to observe that Western missionary endeavors in India have been dominated by Western leadership and funds for decades and yet have often had little impact on the regions where they were located. In recent years the Indian government has greatly restricted foreign missionary activity, and the Indian church has become very effective in promoting the gospel in that country and elsewhere beyond its borders. A good part of the reason is because Christianity is being freed from the bondage of Western culture and is identifying with the culture (I should say cultures) of that great country. To the degree that we fail to comprehend the difference between our Christianity and our culture, we shackle the gospel.
(2) Culture plays a vital role in evangelism. Paul told the Corinthian saints that he carefully considered the impact of his culture on the preaching of the gospel, changing his culture in any way that was biblical to remove unnecessary barriers to the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19-23). I am convinced that a good part of my failure as a witness is related to my cultural rigidity. Fundamental Christians have sought to protect themselves from the “world” by creating rigid rules which are often the basis for alienating our unsaved neighbors. We have come to think of spiritual purity in terms of physical separation, and so we avoid many of the places where the unsaved may be.
Now please don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating that we frequent porno shops, X-rated movies, and massage parlors in the name of evangelism. I am saying that we have become so preoccupied with church activities that we have no time and no interest in those things which are of interest to our neighbors—things like the PTA, the city council, Boy Scouts, and so on. If we are going to win men and women to Christ, we must, like Paul, become much more sensitive to the negative or positive impact of culture on the preaching of the gospel. Those elements of our culture which are expendable, we should gladly give up in order to, by all means, save some. We have become so alienated from the world in which we live that we can hardly relate to the lost in a way which provides an occasion to share our faith in a winsome fashion.
(3) Culture plays a vital role in the worship of the church. Never before has the church in America seen such a dramatic shift in the cultures represented in the congregation. The 1960s brought about a new generation, one which reacted strongly to the values and the lifestyle (the culture) of their parents. The “hippies,” the “Jesus people,” and a host of other reactionary movements came into existence. While the revolutionary aspects have passed, many of the younger generation of Christians have come out of this tradition, or at least have come to adopt a part of this counter-culture. This is most evident in the area of music. Instead of the traditional hymns, accompanied by the traditional instruments, the piano and the organ, there is a new kind of music, often accompanied by guitars. The older generation (of which I am a part) tends to find the new music “irreverent,” while the younger generation finds the older musical forms uninspiring. The unity of the church, especially in its worship, has been endangered. Recognition of these “cultural” differences and responding to them in a biblical way has brought about growth for the church:
At Bear Valley one of our congregations is more of a melting pot than the others. It is made up of middle-class family units, many singles, street people and some antiestablishment thinkers. There are points of tension in this service. For example, the middle-class people like to sing from a hymnal accompanied by a piano. The street people prefer passages of Scripture set to music with guitars or maybe a banjo. … Through trial and error we have found an approach which seems to work. We simply split up. Half the time a middle-class person leads the music and half the time a street person leads. Each group, in time, learns to appreciate the other. It has been good for street people to establish friendships with middle-class people and vice versa. In fact, many in this congregation are attracted to it because of this very quality of diversity. We don’t believe we ought to force people to relate to others in different subcultures. But we feel it is a healthy thing for the whole church when the opportunity to do so exists.22
As discovered in the Book of Acts, it is possible for people of various cultures to be Christians. However, these differences in culture can also threaten the unity of the church. In order to guard against such a breech in fellowship, Christians of each culture must be sensitive to those things which are offensive to Christians of a different culture and must seek to set these things aside, making cultural concessions for the sake of unity and harmony. Our church, like the one described above, must learn to live and to worship together, respecting the cultural differences of others in the body of Christ.
(4) The church is often culture-bound, thus hindering its ministry. I have observed that the church most often seems to be on the lagging edge of culture, rather than on the leading edge. One of the reasons why the church fails to minister creatively, and the parachurch groups do so, is because the church is plagued with cultural paralysis. Tillapaugh in his book, The Church Unleashed, tells how the Baptist and Methodist denominations grew rapidly in the 19th century by responding to the changes in society. As the population moved west, there were not enough trained ministers to plant and pastor the churches which were required. The Baptists responded creatively by supplying “farmer-preachers” while the Methodists had their “circuit riders.”23 The result was the rapid growth of these churches, due to their responsiveness to the changes in their culture.
The church of today is so culture-bound it finds change difficult and agonizing if possible at all. The classic symptom of this cultural rigidity is the defense, “But we’ve always done it that way before.” The church needs to be able to detect changes in the culture about it and to respond creatively, yet biblically to them. Creativity in ministry is, in part, due to a proper understanding of culture and its relationship to the gospel.
(5) Satan’s most effective attacks upon the church may come through culture. Strangely, the Christian seems to look for Satan to attack the church in very direct and frontal ways, rather than through his more subtle (and effective) means. For example, the current “conspiracy” about which the church is being warned is that of “secular humanism.” Our attention has thus been focused on such issues as the teaching of evolution and prayer in schools. In the meantime, Satan is at work undermining our culture. Since our culture is something of which Christians are rarely conscious, Satan’s devices are not even detected.
Let me illustrate what I mean. For a long time the American culture was largely Christian in its values. For example, in the past society did not look favorably upon divorce or homosexuality, and so few practiced these evils, at least in a very open way. Unbelievers considered themselves Christians because they practiced Christian values. Christians prided themselves for practicing Christian values, too. In truth, many unbelievers and Christians were only conforming to the mores of their society—they conformed to a culture which was outwardly, at least, Christian. Satan used the moral culture as a means of deceiving many to consider themselves Christian, when they were only conformists.
Saturated by this atmosphere, Christians did not remain married or heterosexual because of any commitment to Christian principles, but out of conformity to culture’s values. Nonchristian values, however, have changed to conform more closely with their hearts. Divorces have become easy to obtain and society came to tolerates them—even encourage them. The values of non-believers have become evident, and so have the values of the Christians. While the divorce rate among the general population has slowed down, the rate of divorces among Christians is reportedly still climbing (Christians are on the lagging edge of culture again). In retrospect we can see that Christians were not acting out of conviction by staying married to their wives, but only out of cultural conformity. Satan thus can attack Christians in such a subtle way that they are unaware of what has happened. When we equate Christianity (or spirituality) to conformity with a certain prescribed culture (which is what the Judaizers did, and what legalists of every age do), Satan can attack Christians by undermining their culture, an area of which they are only slightly conscious.
I hope that you are beginning to see the vital importance of understanding culture and its need to be consistent with the gospel. It is nearly impossible to understand the Old or the New Testament without first coming to grips with the culture of those days and the way in which Christian faith related to it. It is imperative that we see the relationship between the gospel and culture today, and that we shed those aspects of our culture which are incompatible with the gospel or which hinder the proclamation and practice of the gospel. In order to resist the devil, we must understand how he works through culture. In order to have unity and harmony in the church, we must see how culture affects our worship.
I would encourage you to make the study of culture a priority. You can sharpen your cultural sensitivities by looking for cultural characteristics in the Bible. Try to distinguish, for example, the difference between the culture of the Israelites under the law and that of the Canaanites. Try to understand the life and ministry of our Lord in the gospels in light of the culture of that day. Consider the Gentile churches of the New Testament in light of the distinct culture of those cities.
Make every effort to learn about different lifestyles by seeking to know people from different cultures in our city. International Students Incorporated facilitates interaction between foreign students and church members. Try to get to know your fellow-Christians in this church who have a distinctly different culture. Find out how and why their culture affects their Christian life. If possible seek to travel to other countries, and if this is not possible, read missionary accounts of other cultures and ask visiting missionaries about the differences in the culture of those to whom they minister.
Finally, read books on the subject of culture. Be able to detect those aspects of your life which are influenced by your culture. One of the best books I am aware of is The Gravedigger File, by Os Guinness,24 which shows the way Satan works through culture to undermine Christian faith and witness.
Culture is important because of its relationship to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I pray that you will take this matter seriously, for the sake of the gospel.
15 In Acts 15:2 the church at Antioch sent Barnabas, Paul, and some others to Jerusalem “concerning this issue.” The issue mentioned in verse 2 is that stated in verse 1: that the Gentiles must be circumcised (and thus oblige themselves to keep the Law of Moses as prescribed by the Pharisees) in order to be saved.
16 “On the other hand, part of the Law is defined as ‘quite necessary’ (a most emphatic word is used in verse 28).” E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), p. 114. I disagree with the inference Blaiklock seems to make here; namely, that the Gentiles were freed from most of the law, but not all of it, as though this is the one part of the law to which they are still bound.
17 Cf. Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 1959), pp. 215-216.
18 Richard F. Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), p. 191.
20 The historical details which follow are from Lovelace, pp. 192-195.
22 Frank R. Tillapaugh, The Church Unleashed (Ventura, Ca.: Regal Books, 1982), pp. 37-38.
24 Os Guinness, The Gravedigger File (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983).
Several years ago a friend of mine was working in his garage. He was the kind of person who did not like to be interrupted while engaged in a project. Knowing this, his wife walked into the garage and stood quietly at his side for several minutes, waiting for the proper time to speak. At last her husband looked up, the signal that she was free to say what was on her mind. Very calmly, and without a trace of panic, she said, “The house is on fire.”
There definitely is a time to forsake the customary, polite, social graces and bluntly state the problem. The burning house was a time for immediate communication. Likewise, the desertion of the churches of Galatia from the teaching of Paul and from the gospel of God’s grace was the time for the sounding of the alarm. Paul had little time to waste in polite introductions, for the problem facing these churches could have had devastating results.
It is possible that this epistle to the Galatians is the first letter of the Apostle Paul. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to compare the way Paul begins this letter with his customary introduction. The way you and I begin and end our personal letters is quite similar in form, if not in content. As customary in the letters of that day, Paul’s letters had a predictable form.25 There was an initial greeting, a prayer or petition for grace and peace, thanksgiving to God, the body of the letter, personal greetings, and a farewell.
In this letter the thanksgiving section, present in Paul’s other epistles (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:2), is missing. Instead, Paul bluntly expresses his dismay: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6). Something was seriously wrong in the churches of Galatia to prompt such a sobering introduction. A careful reading of the entire epistle confirms this observation. The gospel which Paul had preached and which these Christians had accepted was somehow quickly set aside for other teaching.
The study of the Book of Galatians is of critical importance to Christians today. Not only do we learn of a departure from the gospel in ancient days, but we shall see that there is similar error being proclaimed today. Many Christians have accepted this divergence from the gospel, not knowing the seriousness of their error. It is important for us to understand what the Galatian error was so that we can recognize similar false teaching today. God-willing, we will reject false teaching for what it is—a departure from the gospel by which we have been saved.
Before we begin our study there are two introductory matters which we need to discuss at the outset. First, we must understand where “the churches of Galatia” were located. Secondly, we must agree upon the date of the writing of the epistle, for it helps define the region of “Galatia.”
The difficulty in determining what Paul meant by the term “Galatia” results from the fact that “Galatia” can be used in two ways: first, it can refer to the whole Roman administrative district (especially the southern part of this district), such as we find on the map in the back of many Bibles, or secondly, it can designate ethnic Galatia (only the northern portion of this district). Older scholars tended to support the latter view, while more recent scholars26 seem inclined toward the former. Let me summarize the reasons why the evidence for the South Galatian theory seems to outweigh that for the North Galatian theory:
(1) In his epistles Paul used the Roman provincial names, while in Acts Luke used the ethnic designations.27 We would therefore expect Paul to be speaking of the larger territory, which included the southern portion of Galatia.
(2) Acts 14 describes the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas (who is named in the Galatian letter) to “South Galatia,” while any missionary efforts in ethnic Galatia are much more hypothetical. We have no evidence of any churches being established by Paul in the north, while ample evidence exists of the establishment of churches in the south.
(3) Since the Jewish populace was greater in the south than in the north, a problem with Judaizers would be more likely in that region. In Galatians Paul assumes his readers have a fair knowledge of the Old Testament and of Judaism, which would have been more likely in the south. We also know from Acts 14 that there was considerable opposition to Paul’s preaching in the cities of “South Galatia.”
I have to smile to myself as I share these arguments in favor of the “South Galatian theory” with you. As a seminary student, I was sick when I took the final exam for New Testament Survey. Naturally, the professor asked us to defend one position or the other. I was not able to defend either, and I always felt badly about that. At least now I can answer the question. Having done so, let me emphasize that godly men have taken both positions, and the true scholars are those who give careful thought to both sides and who cautiously express a preference for one or the other. In the final analysis, much thought is given to this problem only because of its bearing on the dating of this epistle.
We have already studied the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 as background for the study of the Book of Galatians. Based upon what I have already said, it might appear that Galatians was written after the Jerusalem Council. Indeed, some scholars believe this to be the case. I am still of the opinion, however, that the Book of Galatians was written sometime shortly before the Council.
Understanding this epistle to be written to those churches in “South Galatia,” we can tentatively outline the events leading to the Jerusalem Council. Paul and Barnabas had gone forth in their first missionary journey, traveling to the “South Galatian” cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Paul and Barnabas then returned to Syrian Antioch, where they spent a considerable time (Acts 14:28). Peter had come to Antioch to see how this church was doing, and fell into hypocrisy when some other Jews from Jerusalem arrived. Paul thus rebuked Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-21). While in Antioch, Paul must have received word that some of the saints were already falling prey to the teaching of the Judaizers. The arrival of Judaizers in Antioch would have intensified Paul’s concern. A letter to the Galatian churches was then written some time before the Jerusalem Council. Naturally, no mention of the Council’s decision would be included in the letter.
“Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),”
When the mailman comes, I have a quick and easy method of sorting through the mail to determine what to open and what to discard. I look for the tell-tale signs of what we commonly refer to as “junk” mail—these are not personal letters but actually mass mailings designed to appear personal. Another key I use in recognizing important mail is to look at the return address; occasionally, we receive a letter from Dallas County summoning either my wife or myself to jury duty. Such an official letter always gets my attention, whether I like what is inside or not. The same could be said of still another kind of letter—the three words, Internal Revenue Service, on the outside of a letter always get my attention!
The word “apostle” in verse 1 hardly takes us by surprise. After all, Paul was an apostle. No orthodox Christian today questions that. Furthermore, Paul almost always opened his epistles with a reference to his apostleship. Paul’s claim to apostleship in verse 1 had far more meaning to the Galatian recipients. If his apostleship was taken seriously, the letter would carry a greater impact. To write a letter as an apostle is tantamount to saying that the author of the letter is God Himself. If you and I read letters which come from the IRS or the government, surely we should pay careful attention to a letter which originated from God.
If this is Paul’s first epistle, his claim of apostleship in verse 1 was unexpectedly authoritative, since such an introduction was not yet customary.28 There were, however, different kinds of apostles, for the Greek word conveys the idea of one who is sent. An apostle is one who is sent out with authority. This raises the question, “By whom was Paul sent as an apostle, and with what authority?”
We have already seen from Acts 15 that the Judaizers implied, if they did not say it directly, that they had come with the authority of the apostles who resided in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem Council very flatly denied this in their letter to the Gentile churches (Acts 15:24). At best, the Judaizers could have claimed to be apostles of the church at Jerusalem. In a similar way, Barnabas and Paul were “apostles” of the Antioch church to the church in Jerusalem, for they were sent by the church with the collection to be taken to the elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30).
Paul’s apostleship was of a different and very limited order. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ, commissioned and sent out by Him. This is Paul’s thrust in verse 1: “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead).”
The structure of the Book of Galatians is the outflow of the claim of apostleship which Paul has made in this first verse. Chapters 1 and 2 contain Paul’s defense of his apostleship, a fact denied by the Judaizers and now doubted by some of the Galatian saints. Having defended his authority in the first two chapters, Paul reiterates the message of the gospel in chapters 3 and 4. Paul’s gospel exposes the error into which some have fallen, by placing themselves under the Law after having been saved by grace. Chapters 5 and 6 spell out the practical outworkings of the gospel of God’s grace, which enable the saint to live a godly life in a fallen world.
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Imagine yourself as a member of one of the Galatian churches which had just received this letter from Paul. The first four verses would not have been hard to accept. If this letter followed the style of any of Paul’s other epistles, we would expect a word of thanksgiving, commendation or encouragement. No such word is found here. Instead, Paul comes out of the chute, as it were, with his guns blazing. The severity of the error is signaled by the urgency of Paul’s tone and by the stinging words he chose to diagnose the disease of the Galatian churches. Paul indicts the false teachers for preaching another gospel and pronounces sentence upon them by damning them. Paul accuses those who have fallen for such teaching of deserting the God who called them in Christ Jesus. Paul could not have stated the problem in more shocking terms. He meant to jar these saints. This was no time for diplomacy or subtlety.
Paul is not trying to be theatrical. He is doing the only thing that can be done in such circumstances. It would hardly seem appropriate for me to yank one of my girls about by her hair. Yet suppose that one of my daughters was about to step into the street in front of a speeding car. This would be no time for a casual talk about cars and streets. Neither would there be any alternative other than to grab her as quickly as I could and yank with all my might, in the hope of preventing injury or death. In a time of crisis, severe action is not only appropriate, it is mandatory. The severity of Paul’s words alerts us to the seriousness of the situation in the Galatian churches. Let us consider the danger more carefully.
Several years ago I had an emergency appendectomy and while recovering, a friend came to visit. He was obviously uneasy and he nervously fidgeted with my I.V. bottle hanging from a rack next to him. The precious fluid flowed from the tubing into my arm. Suddenly with no warning the bottle plunged downward, loosened by his tampering. At that moment, that little bottle was very important to me. That bottle was my life. It was vital to my well-being. Tampering with it could have cost me my life.
If tampering with that glass bottle of fluid was so distressing to me, you can understand why Paul is so concerned about those who were altering the gospel. To change the gospel is to jeopardize the basis of the eternal well-being of every Christian. The problem which Paul raises could not have been more critical. His words are well chosen to convey this fact.
Verse 6 conveys Paul’s shock and horror at what has occurred. When the Galatians turned to a different gospel, they deserted the Father, who called them through the Son. In verse 7 Paul clarifies his reference to a “different gospel” in the previous verse. In reality there is only one gospel, and no other. What may at first have seemed like a minor adjustment in doctrine to the Galatians was an alternative to the gospel. Worse yet, it was an abandonment of the gospel, for there is only one gospel. This abandonment was instigated by false teachers who disturbed some in the church by distorting the gospel.
Verses 8 and 9 are Paul’s words regarding these false teachers, or any others who would distort the gospel of God’s grace. The gospel is that which Paul had previously proclaimed to the Galatians. No matter who it might be, no matter how spectacular they might be, any deviation from the gospel previously proclaimed would be worthy of God’s most severe judgment. To reemphasize, Paul repeats in verse 9 what he has said in verse 8. However, verse 9 is more than a mere repetition of the previous verse. I believe that Paul reiterates not only what he has just said (in verse 8), but also what he had previously said29 while still with the Galatians. Thus the apostle was amazed at how quickly the Christians had turned aside from the gospel. They had not only quickly turned aside, but they turned aside after having been warned.30
There is, I believe, a considerably greater condemnation pronounced upon those who further a false gospel than that which will befall those who only follow such teaching. This is not to say that believing such error is to be taken lightly, for Paul spoke of it as forsaking God (v. 6). The false teacher, however, is even more severely cautioned; he is doubly cursed. The text may imply that while there are those who could fall into such error unwittingly—that is, not knowing its full implications—those who teach another gospel do so consciously. These false teachers “want to distort the gospel of Christ” (v. 7). Because the false teacher leads others astray, and because he does so willfully, he is worthy of a much more severe penalty (cf. James 3:1).
Our study of the Book of Galatians will reiterate the true gospel and will reveal that which is false. Let us briefly preview what we shall discover as we continue in this great book by considering the definition of the gospel found in verses 3-5.
The true gospel is outlined in verses 3-5 of chapter 1. Just as Paul’s apostleship is summarized in verse 1 and defended in chapters 1 and 2, so the gospel is given a preliminary definition in 1:3-5, only to be expanded upon throughout the rest of the book. The results of the gospel, “grace” and “peace,” are mentioned in verse 3. The gospel is grace. The gospel bestows grace and peace to those who receive it by faith. When men turn from the gospel, they turn from grace (cf. 5:4) and from peace (cf. 5:20,26).
The gospel is the result of the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary (1:4). His death was for the forgiveness of our sins and our “deliverance from this present evil age,” according to the will of God and for His glory (1:4b, 5). We may be inclined to think of our deliverance from “this present evil age” as our eschatological (future) hope, but this is not the principle thought here, at least in my opinion. The work of Christ on the cross is sufficient to forgive us of our sins, and to finally and fully sanctify us in His presence, but for the time being it is also adequate to free us from our slavery to sin here and now. Thus, it is to our present (as well as our future) sanctification that Paul refers. This is especially significant in the context of the whole book, for the Judaizers taught differently. They believed that putting men back under the Law would sanctify them, and that faith alone was not sufficient.
The “other gospel,” or the “un-gospel” to which Paul referred in verses 6-9, finds the finished work of Christ inadequate to sanctify men in a sinful world. As a result, they seek to add Law-keeping to faith, and thus nullify grace altogether. The false gospel which is countered in this epistle is man-made and man-pleasing (1:10-11). It seeks to put men under bondage by compelling them to be circumcised and to keep the Old Testament Law (2:3-5; 4:1-31; 5:1-12). It implies that those who fail to live under the Law are second class citizens, thus denying the gospel (2:11-21). The false gospel forgets that divine power is manifested through God’s Spirit, given through faith. The false gospel makes men return to a reliance on the flesh (3:1-5; 5:16-26; 6:8). The false gospel fails to remember that the Old Testament Law condemned men, and that salvation was always a matter of God’s promise, not men’s performance (3:6-29; 6:12-16).
Paul’s introduction to the letter to the Galatians underscores one truth which is not only central in the epistle but is crucial to every Christian: the preservation of the purity of the gospel. In following the teaching of the Judaizers, the Galatians had turned from the truth of the gospel, and thus from God Himself. To have circumcised Titus, or for any Gentile to have been circumcised, would have been to turn away from the gospel of God’s grace (2:3-5; 5:1-4). When Peter severed himself from the Gentile Christians to eat with the Jewish believers, he ceased to live consistently with the gospel (2:11-21).
For Paul, the gospel was not just a message which, if believed, led to salvation; it was a guiding principle which governed men’s lives. Actions which seemed inconsequential to others (such as making concessions to the legalism of the Judaizers) were abhorrent to Paul because they were a violation of the gospel. To Paul, the gospel was the one truth which must never be altered, not only in credal confession, but in practice.
I would hope that every one of us would agree that our church needs to be a church soundly committed to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. What does this mean in very practical terms? In a number of churches it means that every sermon is evangelistic, with an invitation given. I have attended some churches where I was unknown to the congregation. There I found that every eye seemed to be looking in my direction during the evangelistic message, and especially as the invitation was given. I knew what these people were thinking. They assumed I was probably an unbeliever, and thus the target of the sermon, but they were not implicated since they were already saved. What possible application could a “gospel message” have for them, since they had already believed?
Paul says that the gospel has everything to do with those who are saved. It is the standard by which our every act and attitude must be judged. It is the central truth which must be practiced and preserved in its purity. To Paul, the gospel meant not only an invitation to unbelievers, but the spelling out of its implications to Christians. The gospel is not something we face once (at conversion) and then leave behind. It is the message we believe to be saved, and the message by which we are to live. This will become more and more clear as we proceed through the Book of Galatians.
The Lord’s Table is observed each week at our church. The message of the Book of Galatians helps me to understand one of the practical reasons for doing so. The elements which are placed before us on the communion table are representatives of the essence of the gospel. Not only are we reminded of the salvation we have obtained once for all through the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord, but we are also reminded of the essence of the gospel, to which our daily lives must conform. The gospel reminds us of the basis for our salvation, as well as for our sanctification. No wonder the New Testament church saw the need for a weekly remembrance of the Lord’s death. Christians must be reminded of the gospel because of what it means for our everyday living.
Paul’s introduction to the Book of Galatians should serve to warn us that the gospel, even when believed, can quickly be forsaken. I do not personally believe that it was consciously scrapped or set aside as much as it was deserted by distortion and thoughtless action. What was wrong, some may have reasoned, in submitting to circumcision in order to humor the Judaizers? It was truly wrong, Paul insisted, for in so doing the gospel of God’s grace was denied. My point is that we tend to measure orthodoxy more in terms of people’s creed, while Paul looks at their conduct. To act contrary to the gospel is to depart from the gospel. This we may do more often, and less intentionally, through our actions than by our outright affirmation.
The gospel, Paul would have us know, is set aside in the name of purity and piety, as much as it is in the name of paganism and immorality. Generally, we look for the heretic among those who openly advocate loose living and who openly attack the authority of the Word of God. However, we must also become more alert to the fact that Satan uses morality and purity as bait as often as he uses immorality and impurity. The “doctrine of demons” in 1 Timothy 4:1-4 deals with the denial of certain liberties in the name of holiness. So, too, in the Book of Colossians, denial and self-abuse are advocated as promoting purity, when they do just the opposite (cf. Col. 2). The Judaizers sought to bring about purity and holiness through Law-keeping. Paul taught that the gospel brings about purity (cf. 1:4), through the work of Christ on the cross. The gospel is salvation by grace, through faith, apart from works. Let us beware of those who seek to promote godliness through human effort. Such is a denial of the gospel by which men are saved.
25 Cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, Rev. Ed., 1976), pp. xi-xiii.
26 Among the more recent scholars who are inclined toward the “South Galatian theory” are: F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982); R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965); Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953).
28 In the Book of Philippians, Paul did not refer to himself as an apostle, but there was no need to here for his apostleship was not disputed. Indeed, it was this church alone which chose to share with Paul in his financial needs (Phil. 4:18). The Thessalonian saints did not challenge Paul’s apostleship, either, and so Paul does not introduce himself in his customary way (as an apostle).
29 In verse 8 Paul says, “As we have said before …” The warning was not only Paul’s but the others with him as well. The warning was thus clearly and emphatically sounded.
I can distinctly recall a particular occasion on which I attempted, in vain, to please men. In all honesty, it would be more accurate to say that I attempted to please (young) women. I was a high school student attending a church camp. I had grown up on a lake, and I thought I knew all there was to know about swimming. While several of the girls were watching, I decided to show them how a “pro” would dive. Running full force from the beach and plunging headlong into the water, I discovered to my dismay that the water was exceedingly shallow and my face scraped along the graveled bottom. There was no choice but to come to the surface (only inches above) and to expose my bloody face.
Likely each of you can remember stories about yourself, too. All of us have been guilty of trying to please men. Paul was accused of being a man-pleaser by those who proclaimed a gospel different from that which the apostle preached. This accusation was intended to undermine Paul’s authority and to accredit the “different gospel,” which the Judaizers had been preaching among the Galatian churches. Paul, however, was innocent. The passage which we are to study is a part of Paul’s defense against the charge of being a man-pleaser.
We need first to refresh our memories with respect to the context in which our passage is found. The first two chapters of Galatians are introductory and foundational. The Galatian Christians had deserted God by adopting a perverted version of the gospel (1:6-9). This, we shall see more clearly, was the result of the teaching of the Judaizers, who sought to add the keeping of the Old Testament law to faith as a requirement for salvation. The Judaizers attacked Paul’s apostleship as part of their teaching of a “different gospel,” a gospel different from that which Paul had proclaimed. Chapters 1 and 2 are a defense of both Paul’s apostleship and of the gospel which he had proclaimed. Chapters 3 and 4 expose the theological error of Judaism by turning back to the Old Testament law, demonstrating that it was neither intended, nor able, to accomplish what the Judaizers promised. Finally in chapters 5 and 6 Paul explains how God has made provision for holiness through the grace of the gospel. Thus, it is only grace which supplies the holiness which the law demanded.
10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. 11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
There is nothing indirect about Paul’s approach in chapter 1. He has already bluntly stated that some of the Galatian saints have forsaken God by following another gospel. Having outlined the false teaching within the church, he hastened to address the problem which the church seemed to have with him. The Judaizers could not attack the gospel Paul preached without attacking him. This they did by an assault on his character. They alleged that Paul had changed not for the better, but for the worse, and that his message was motivated by a desire to win man’s approval, rather than God’s. Such charges are implied by Paul’s statement in verse 10:
For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
The word “now” appears first in the Greek text, underscoring its emphasis. It centers upon the change in Paul since his conversion. Indeed, it almost begrudges his conversion. The charges infer that Paul once sought to please God, but now he only wishes to please men. Paul focuses on this change which has occurred and upon the motive which his opponents are suggesting underlies his gospel. Paul’s opponents charged that he had thrown out the requirements which had been historically laid upon Gentile proselytes to Judaism. Now, he was preaching that Gentiles could be saved apart from Judaism, by mere faith in a Jewish Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. They claimed that he acted not out of integrity, not out of necessity, but out of a desire to gain easy converts who would be indebted to Paul and who would look upon him with favor.
It is very difficult for us to feel the intensity of emotion involved in this issue. Let me attempt to illustrate it in a way that comes a little closer to home. Suppose that you were a white, southern aristocrat who belonged to a very private club. A reason for the club’s exclusiveness was the extremely high initiation fee. For years and years membership had been restricted to only those whom the members themselves chose to admit. The club even had its own religious rituals, all very formal and “high church.” Suddenly, with the change in federal law, such private clubs were now outlawed. Members could not be excluded on the basis of race, creed, or social status. One of the members radically changed his mind and began to bring in new members, precisely those who had previously been purposely excluded. To add insult to injury, this person had the audacity to bring in new members without requiring any initiation fee whatsoever.
There is a mentality, common among religious fundamentalists, which suspects anything which is too easy.31 This mindset distrusts anything that appears to be too tolerant and not sufficiently difficult and demanding. The underlying assumption is the more demanding the duty, the more painful the process, the higher the price of piety, the more likely it is to be of God. Thus, there is an immediate suspicion concerning anything which appears to be too easy. Contradictory to this attitude is the fact that biblical Christianity is founded upon the principles and the processes of grace. The danger of a fundamentalist mindset (as good as this may be), is that it may question the grace upon which salvation and sanctification rest. Paul not only preached grace, he practiced it, and in so doing brought about a strong reaction from the Judaizers who questioned both Paul’s message and his motives.
There is an element of truth in the accusation of the Judaizers against Paul. Paul admitted to changing his conduct depending upon the cultural preferences of his audience. This he did to avoid undue offense to the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). While Paul was willing to make cultural concessions, he was unbending concerning any concession with regard to the gospel which he preached. He was unwilling to make any requirements of the Gentiles concerning the keeping of the Old Testament law, for this was contrary to grace.
The issue in question is whether Paul deliberately diluted his message to suit his audience in order to gain status among them. Paul’s defense begins with the word “still” in verse 10. He thus turned the tables on his opponents. His conversion was not a change for the worse, but a change for the better. It was not that he had begun to be a man-pleaser since his conversion, but that he had ceased to be so. As a zealous Pharisee he was a man-pleaser. Had he not been converted, he would still be a man-pleaser. In verses 11 and 12 Paul gives a general answer in his own defense: “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
Paul’s motives, according to the Judaizers, were human. They claimed that he desired more to please men than he did to please God. Furthermore they charged that the divine message had been corrupted by Paul’s fallen humanity. Paul insisted that nothing could be farther from the truth. The details of his conversion and growth as a Christian (and an apostle) refute the charge that he was a man-pleaser. What he learned about the gospel, he learned apart from men (vv. 11, 12). No one could claim more independence from human contamination of the gospel than he. Paul buttresses his argument by more specific examples from his experiences: (1) his conversion (1:13-17); (2) his relationship to the apostles in Jerusalem (1:18–2:10); and (3) his confrontation of Peter (2:11-21).
13 For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
The gospel Paul preached was that same message by which he was saved; thus, his gospel and his conversion were intertwined. In verses 13-17 Paul outlines his conversion experience. Verses 13 and 14 describe him as he was before his conversion. He was devoutly religious as a defender of Judaism.32 Not only was Paul zealous for Judaism, but he was also successful as a Pharisee. He claimed that before his conversion he was “advancing in Judaism” beyond many of his contemporaries (1:14). No one advances in prominence and position unless people are pleased with his performance. Paul, therefore, informs us that it was his devotion to duty which earned him his status within Judaism.
Not only was Paul’s success as a Pharisee the result of pleasing men, but his belief in Judaism was based upon the teachings of men. According to verse 14 Paul was a devotee of Judaism with a zeal for his “ancestral traditions.” Would his opponents charge him with forsaking that which was divine for that which was human? They were wrong, for Judaism was a religion that men had prescribed and promoted. Paul’s zeal to advance within the ranks of Judaism was based upon his desire to win the favor and approval of his contemporaries.
Paul’s new faith came about in an entirely different way, as he describes in verses 15-17. His conversion was initiated by God, rather than by any human agent. God had set him apart, even while in his mother’s womb, for the express purpose of preaching Christ to the Gentiles (1:15-16). God revealed His Son in Paul, not just “to” him (1:16). Specifically, Paul’s conversion was one which took place “within” him through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit who brings the dead to life (cf. John 3:8; Eph. 2:5; Titus 3:5). You will remember that in Paul’s recorded encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus Paul was directly addressed by the risen Lord; however, though Paul’s companions heard the sound, they did not understand Christ’s voice (Acts 22:9). Paul’s conversion resulted from a direct confrontation with the risen Son of God.
To be sure, there was human instrumentality. It was through Ananias that the way of salvation was made known to Paul, along with his calling as God’s instrument to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:10-18). Paul spent several days with the saints at Damascus (Acts 9:19). Apart from these minimal involvements with human instruments, Paul’s conversion and spiritual growth was primarily the result of direct divine encounter. Paul claims that he did not immediately confer with men in general, nor with the apostles in Jerusalem, but instead he grew largely in solitude (1:16b-17).33 During the critical, early formative years of Paul’s life as a Christian, he had few men about him to corrupt the gospel. Paul’s salvation and the gospel he was being taught were remarkably free from human contamination.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.
It was not until three years after his conversion that Paul finally went to Jerusalem.34 This chronological fact easily meshes with Luke’s abbreviated account in the book of Acts.35 In Acts 9 we are told that Paul was converted in Damascus (vv. 8-19a), where he spent several days with the believers (v. 19b). We are told that he boldly preached Christ (v. 20), and that after “many days had elapsed,” Paul left Damascus because of a death plot (v. 23) and went up to Jerusalem (v. 26). As a result of a plot to kill Paul in Jerusalem, he was sent to Caesarea and then on to Tarsus, his home town36 (vv. 29-30). Thus we can account for a period of three years from the time Paul was first saved in Damascus to the time he fled “after many days” to Jerusalem, only to flee again after a very brief stay.
Even three years after his conversion, Paul did not seek to formulate his gospel on the basis of apostolic approval. Paul tells us in verse 18 that he went up to Jerusalem “to become acquainted with Cephas.” This expression does not suggest a desire to have his message given the “apostolic seal of approval.” Instead, it conveys Paul’s desire to know Peter better. What a wealth of information Peter could supply about the life of our Lord—matters about which Paul would have intense interest, just as you and I do. The visit with Peter lasted for fifteen days (v. 18). In addition to Peter, only James,37 the brother of our Lord, was seen by Paul.
The gospel which Paul preached had very little human input, especially from those who were regarded to be significant—the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Paul was known more by reputation than by appearance to Christian leaders in Jerusalem. While he was an enemy of the church and trying to destroy it, no one wanted to see him. Once he became a believer, few were able to see him. Nevertheless, the saints in Jerusalem rejoiced at the report that Paul, who had once persecuted the church, now proclaimed the gospel himself (Gal. 1:22-24).
Before we go on to chapter 2, let us pause to contemplate the impact of what Paul has just written concerning his conversion. I believe that his conversion experience contains a strong argument against the teaching of the Judaizers. There are two major implications which establish Paul’s apostolic authority and demonstrate the superiority of his gospel to that “different gospel” which some were preaching.
(1) If any religious system promoted man-pleasing it was Judaism, not Paul’s gospel. Judaism had become a tradition-bound religion. Before his conversion and while a Pharisee, Paul was zealous for his “ancestral traditions” (1:14). Paul’s zeal and success were fueled by the nature of Judaism, which placed an excessive emphasis on appearances and external criteria for commitment. Paul’s diligence was based upon a desire to win the approval of his peers. Judaism did not seek to prevent man-pleasing; it promoted it. Let those who insinuated that Paul had changed from a God-pleaser to a man-pleaser give more careful thought to the nature of Judaism. Judaism focused attention on man’s self-righteousness as judged by other men; the gospel focuses attention on God’s righteousness as given to men apart from works. The true saint has reason only to boast in Christ.
(2) Judaism failed to produce the righteousness which it promised. Notice the contrast between Paul’s conduct as a zealous Pharisee and his conduct as a Christian. In verses 13 and 14 Paul claimed to be at “the head of the pack” concerning his zeal and performance as a Pharisee. With this his opponents would have agreed. Their complaint was that Paul had changed—for the worse. The facts reveal just the reverse. It was as a zealous, but unbelieving Jew that Paul was a persecutor and destroyer of the church. Apparently the Judaizers measured righteousness by the number of Christians one had killed or imprisoned. However, in verses 23 and 24 the Christians of Jerusalem were able to praise God that the one who had once persecuted Christians now preached Christ.
I believe that we have seen a modern-day example of this same kind of marvelous change which occurred in Paul in the conversion of Charles Colson. Here was as tough a man as could be found. He was aptly suited to the task and the title of “hatchet man” for the Nixon administration. Yet, when he was born again, this once cruel and insensitive tyrant was transformed into a man who could not sleep at night out of concern for his brothers who remained in prison. Ten years after his release from prison he is now more involved than ever in ministering to this forsaken segment of society. The gospel has the power to radically transform even the most cruel of men.
Now stop and think about the implication of Paul’s conversion for a moment. The error of the Judaizers seemed to originate from the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). Paul was able to write that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, while they did not know Paul personally, were able to praise God because of his conversion from a persecutor to a preacher. Yet it was some of these same Christians who would foolishly teach that adding the traditions of Judaism to the requirement of faith was beneficial to the promotion of godliness.
In what way had Judaism promoted purity and piety in the life of the apostle? The more diligent (and praised) he was, the greater became his persecution of the church. Judaism contributed nothing to godliness in the life of Paul. It produced the very opposite. It was the power of the gospel which transformed Paul from a persecutor to a preacher. How, then, could the Judaizers possibly contend that the gospel was not sufficient to save and to sanctify the sinner? How could they conceivably believe that adding Judaism to the gospel would in any way contribute to godliness? Paul’s conversion proved the opposite. What Judaism could never accomplish, the gospel did.
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles, 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.
It was not until fourteen years later38 that Paul returned to Jerusalem again. There are different opinions as to which account in Acts parallels this occasion, but in my estimation the text points to the journey of Barnabas and Paul from Antioch, bearing the contribution of that church to the poor in Judea (Acts 11:27-30). Several factors suggest this conclusion. First, both the accounts of Luke (Acts 11:27-30) and Paul (Gal. 2:1ff.) present this journey to Jerusalem as Paul’s second visit. Second, both Paul and Barnabas are said to have made the journey together (Acts 11:30; Gal. 2:1).39 Third, Paul said that the reason for his visit was “because of a revelation” (Gal. 2:2). It was the revelation of a famine through the prophet Agabus (Acts 11:27-28) which provided the occasion for the visit of Barnabas and Paul. This would have afforded Paul an excellent opportunity for a private meeting with Peter, James, and John. Fourth, Peter, James, and John urged Paul and Barnabas to “continue to remember the poor”40 (2:10, NIV), which strongly implies that the occasion for this visit was the presentation of the gift from Antioch to the leaders (“elders”) of the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:30).
Paul’s purpose in seeking a private interview with the apostles41 is explained in verses 2 and 3. At first glance, one would suppose that Paul sought apostolic approval of the gospel he preached, but this can hardly be so. Let me enumerate some of the reasons for the conclusion that Paul was not submitting his gospel for approval. First, the context militates against it. Since Paul is trying to establish the fact that his gospel was obtained independently from men, to say he was seeking the approval of the apostles would be contradictory. If Paul had received his message directly from the Lord, why would he feel compelled to seek the approval of men, even of the apostles? In verse 6, Paul makes a point of saying that the apostles “contributed nothing to him.” This was not intended to disparage the role of the apostles, but to emphasize the independence of Paul’s gospel while in full agreement with the gospel which the apostles preached. Second, Paul would hardly have waited 14 years to gain such approval. Paul had been preaching for 14 years without any approval. If he had serious doubts (as the need to seek apostolic approval would suggest), why would he have waited so long to approach the apostles? Why would he not have obtained approval on his first visit, for example?
Third, the Greek word rendered “submitted to them” in verse 2 does not suggest an act seeking official approval. In the ancient Greek papyri, it had the sense of “… ‘impart,’ ‘communicate,’ with a view to consultation.”42 This term is found elsewhere only in Acts 25:14, where “Festus laid Paul’s case before the king [Agrippa].” In the context, it is evident that Agrippa was not asked to decide this matter, nor to approve the decision of Festus, but rather was consulted for an opinion which was not binding. In fact, Agrippa did not really make a pronouncement, other than to agree with what Festus had concluded. So, also, in Galatians 2:2. Paul was not nervously seeking the sanction of the apostles, but was consulting with them.
What, then, was Paul’s purpose for this private meeting? It is my understanding that Paul happened to be in Jerusalem and in contact with Peter, James, and John in connection with the collection he and Barnabas were conveying to the elders of the church. It was an appropriate moment for Paul to speak privately so as to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding between himself and the leaders of the Jerusalem church, especially in light of growing opposition from the Judaizers, who claimed to be supported by the apostles.
Paul did not say that he feared his message might be in error, but rather that “he might be running, or had run, in vain” (2:2). Paul’s fear was that, because of a misunderstanding of his message, there might be an unnecessary rift between himself and the other apostles who were in Jerusalem. To “run in vain” is to run in such a way as to fail to achieve the goal. Any rift between Paul and the apostles could mean division and strife between those Jews and Gentiles who had been saved and brought into unity through the gospel (cf. Eph. 2:11-22). This would only hinder the proclamation of the gospel. Paul approached the apostles privately in order to prevent any misunderstandings which would hinder the gospel in its proclamation or practice.
During his second visit to Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas received a mixed response to their presence. The first response was that of the Judaizers concerning Titus, who was an uncircumcised Greek Christian (vv. 3-5). The second response was that of the principal leaders, James, Peter, and John, who recognized God’s hand upon Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles and who gave Paul and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship” (vv. 6-10). The contrast in these two responses to Paul provide yet another argument in favor of Paul’s apostolic authority, and thus, for the gospel which he preached.
When Paul and Barnabas arrived with Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile (2:3), the Judaizers immediately began to demand that he be circumcised (2:4). Paul referred to these men as “false brethren,” which raises a question concerning their salvation. Their aim, Paul wrote, was to replace the liberty of the grace of the gospel with the slavery of righteousness by self-effort (2:4). Paul refused to surrender to such pressure, and we have no indication that the apostles pressured Paul to capitulate by having Titus circumcised.43 To have given in to the Judaizers would have been to surrender to those who had perverted the gospel (2:5).
We are not taken by surprise that Paul would refuse to have Titus circumcised, for he would have viewed this as a surrender to those who had directly attacked the truth of the gospel (cf. 2:5). I believe the point Paul is stressing here is that even under strong pressure to compel Titus to be circumcised, the apostles did not insist upon his circumcision as a matter of necessity. What the Judaizers demanded, the apostles did not. Paul and Barnabas thus were in accord with the apostles in withstanding the Judaizers.
While the Judaizers accused and accosted Paul and Barnabas, the apostles accepted them (vv. 6-10). In verses 3-5 the apostles in Jerusalem supported the decision of Paul and Barnabas not to have Titus circumcised (a specific issue). Furthermore, in verses 6-10 the apostles went on to indicate their recognition of God’s hand and calling of Paul and Barnabas in their ministry of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles. Contrary to the Judaizers (cf. “But on the contrary,” 2:7), the apostles could see that Paul had been divinely commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter’s calling was to the Jews (2:7-8). The evidence of the apostles’ acceptance of God’s will and work through Paul was the granting of “the right hand of fellowship.” The giving of the right hand was not a sign of approval so much as a gesture of unity and fellowship. The apostles perceived the content of Paul’s preaching to be the same as that which God had given to them, differing only in the audience to whom Christ was proclaimed.
Verse 10 provides us with further confirmation of the independent relationship which existed between Paul and the other apostles in Jerusalem. When they gave Paul and Barnabas the “right hand of fellowship” they made only one request: Paul and Barnabas should continue caring for the poor. First, the Jerusalem apostles found no need to correct any error or weakness on the part of Paul. This is in sharp contrast with the Judaizers, who strongly differed with him and would have gladly used any authority they possessed to force Paul to change significantly (actually they had no authority, which is evident in this passage). Second, the “request” of James, Peter, and John is just that, a request, and not a command. They did not act as Paul’s superiors by giving him instructions, but evidenced their equality (as they did by giving him the “right hand of fellowship”) by making a request. Third, their request was not that something new be initiated (caring for the poor), but that what they had already begun (which was the occasion for this visit of Paul and Barnabas) might continue.
Paul’s account of his second journey dealt a devastating blow to the Judaizers, who were preaching a “different gospel” and who had, by insinuation or accusation, attacked both Paul’s preaching and his position as an apostle. These Judaizers, like those in Acts 15:1,5 (cf. also v. 24), were from Jerusalem. Their only authority was derived from their association with Jerusalem and the apostles. When they attacked Paul, they had to do so on the pretext that Paul’s gospel was not the same as that of the apostles. They implied that the apostles in Jerusalem were fully in support of their insistence that Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep the traditions of Judaism. Thus, the Judaizers deceitfully aligned themselves with the apostles and against Paul.
The facts which Paul has shared about his second journey to Jerusalem reveal several important truths, all of which buttress his apostolic authority and refute the claims and charges of the Judaizers. Allow me to outline the ground that Paul has gained in Galatians 2:1-10.
(1) Paul was certainly not a man-pleaser. The charge behind Galatians 1:10 is that Paul had modified his message in order to please men. Those whom he most wished to please supposedly were the other apostles. The facts reveal that Paul was seldom in Jerusalem and that when he did go there he did not seek the approval of the apostles, but rather sought the advancement of the gospel. The expression “those who were of reputation” (2:2, 6; cf. v. 9) is not meant to show any disrespect for the apostles, but rather to reveal that Paul had no undue sense of awe, since he also was an apostle. This is hardly the mentality of a man-pleaser.
(2) Paul was in full agreement with the apostles in Jerusalem, and had their full support. The alleged differences between Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem, which the Judaizers continually stressed, simply did not exist. The apostles in Jerusalem found no necessity of correcting anything in Paul’s preaching (vv. 6-10) or in his practice (vv.3-5). All they could do was to extend the “right hand of fellowship” and exhort him to “keep up the good work” (vv. 9-10).
(3) Paul and the apostles in Jerusalem were in agreement in opposing the Judaizers. The deception which the Judaizers continually sought to promote was that they and the Jerusalem leaders were in accord in preaching a gospel of faith and law-keeping. The events surrounding the demand that Titus be circumcised proved otherwise. Not only did Paul and Barnabas refuse to submit to this heresy, but the apostles concurred with them. Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, because the Judaizers were wrong (2:3).
(4) The Jerusalem apostles recognized that unity was a matter of truth, not of tradition. The adamant demand of the Judaizers that Titus be circumcised contrasted with the open acceptance of Paul and Barnabas by the apostles. The Judaizers dealt with Paul and Barnabas (and Titus) in light of their traditions. The apostles dealt with them on the basis of the truth of the gospel. Granted, Paul had not been “one of their own,” in the sense of being one of the original number or of being taught by any of the original disciples of our Lord. Nevertheless, the gospel which Paul believed for salvation and which he preached to the Gentiles was the same gospel which they had been given by the Lord. Thus, both Paul and the apostles could claim to have received the gospel directly by the Lord.
It has always been difficult for Christians to fully accept others as Christians who have not come out of their own tradition. Calvinists suspect Arminians, and vice-versa. The assumption is that we can be sure of one’s salvation and ministry if we have had a part in it. The apostles were much bigger men. They recognized that it is God who seeks out men and saves them. Thus, they are willing to accept others whom God has brought to Himself independent of them. While the narrowness of the Judaizers caused them to insist that Paul conform to their traditions before they could accept him, the broadmindedness of the apostles enabled them to accept Paul, even though he was different from them. Their common ground, in which they had unity, was the gospel. Though they had a different calling, they all had the same Christ. That was enough.
A number of years ago, my wife and I were visiting friends and family in a distant place, and we decided to attend church with a congregation that we thought was similar to our own beliefs and practices. When we arrived at the church we were greeted, but not with the friendliness we had expected. Instead, there was a kind of guardedness, as though they thought we might corrupt them. They asked if we had a “letter of commendation” from our church in Dallas. Of course, we had not expected to need such a letter, and so we had not obtained one. As a result, we were told to sit off in a corner by ourselves and were not allowed to partake of the Lord’s Table with them. This kind of narrowness, in my opinion, is inconsistent with the gospel of our Lord. Why could we not be accepted on the basis of our own testimony. Why was a letter from our home congregation necessary for us to be accepted as true believers? It would seem that their traditions had become more important than the truth of the gospel.
We all have a tendency to accept those who have come from the same tradition as ourselves much more readily than those who are from another tradition. Let us be content to accept men and women on the basis of the gospel which they profess and preach, rather than on the basis of the denomination or tradition from which they have come.
Our passage has proven to be a devastating blow to the Judaizers. Paul has shown that he was a man-pleaser while a top level Pharisee, rather than as a Christian (1:13-24). He further contrasts the results of his religious (Judaistic) zeal with the results of his faith in Christ (compare 1:13, 23). If legalism and Judaism were such a boon to righteousness, why was Paul a persecutor and a destroyer of Christ’s church as a front-running candidate for “Pharisee of the Year,” and a preacher of the cross of Christ after forsaking Judaism? Adding law to grace did not contribute to righteousness, but rather counterfeited it. Paul was surely no man-pleaser in his relationship to the apostles in Jerusalem, and yet they unreservedly accepted him and his ministry as equal with theirs (2:1-10). The accusations of Paul’s critics simply have not stood the test of inquiry.
The theme of man-pleasing underlies all of chapters 1 and 2. I will delay addressing this primary theme until after finishing our exposition of chapter 2 in the next lesson. However, I do wish to underscore the power of the gospel to save and to sanctify. If Paul’s gospel was inadequate without the addition of law-keeping, as the Judaizers contended, what did it lack? As far as Paul’s personal testimony was concerned, Judaism contributed only to Paul’s self-righteousness and sin, while the gospel saved him from both.
Just as the power of the gospel was sufficient to save and to sanctify one who was so sinful as to persecute the church of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of religion, it is also sufficient to save and to sanctify you. Your sin might be as deceptive as Paul’s—garbed in the clothing of religion. On the other hand, it may be more openly manifested in various forms of depravity. Whatever your situation, the gospel of Jesus Christ is sufficient to save and to sanctify you. It is through trusting only in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on your behalf that you can find the forgiveness of your sins. While Paul’s conversion may have been more spectacular than yours might be, your salvation will be no less miraculous. Just as Paul needed to forsake his religion and to trust personally in the Lord Jesus, so you must encounter Him in a personal way, trusting only in Him. Such salvation is the promise of the gospel of God’s grace. May you turn to it and to the One of whom it speaks if you have not yet experienced the life-transforming gift of salvation. If you have already believed, may nothing or no one turn you from this gospel. Its power is sufficient to deliver you from the power and the penalty of sin.
31 It should also be said that liberalism tends to err in the opposite direction. While the fundamentalist (conservative) tends to suspect anything free or easy, the liberal immediately bristles at the mention of anything certain, absolute, or authoritative. The liberal is seldom more inconsistent with his own philosophy than when he is forced to deal with a conservative.
32 We must be very careful to distinguish the true religion of the Old Testament saint, which was based upon the Old Testament revelation, from the distorted version of Judaism which was rigorously defended by the Pharisees and which was condemned by our Lord. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, Jesus referred to Judaism by the expression “you have heard it said,” and to true religion as “but I say to you.” A correct view of the old covenant was that it was preparatory and inferior to that of the new covenant. The Judaism which Jesus and Paul resisted (which Paul called “a different gospel” in Gal. 1:6) was perverted, and thus considered by the Judaizers to be preferable to the new covenant, as defined in Paul’s gospel.
33 Numerous biblical commentators point out that “Arabia” in verse 17 is more than likely a reference to the desolate, desert area surrounding Damascus, rather than the more distant “Arabia” which we know today.
34 It is commonly said that Paul spent “three years in the Arabian desert,” based upon the statement in Galatians 1:18. In reality, we do not know how long Paul spent in Arabia, but only that it was three years after his conversion that he went to Jerusalem. Paul was saved in Damascus, where he spent a few days with the disciples. For a time, Paul went into seclusion in Arabia, and then returned to Damascus, where “after many days” he fled from the city and eventually arrived in Jerusalem. We simply do not know what part of that three year period was spent in Arabia, but it seems somewhat less than three years, since “many days” were spent in Damascus.
35 Paul’s account of his first visit to Jerusalem does not conflict with that of Luke in Acts 9:26-30. Luke tells us that Paul fled to Jerusalem from Damascus, attempted to associate with the “disciples” there (Acts 9:26), and was shunned until Barnabas took him to the “apostles” (9:27), after which he was free to come and go with them among the believers (9:28). Paul informs us that it was only Peter and James who were present and with whom he met and then ministered. The brevity of this visit is not inconsistent with Luke’s report, which tells of a death plot and another escape. Both accounts then describe a journey to Cilicia, where Tarsus was located (compare Acts 9:30 and Galatians 1:21).
36 We know that Tarsus was Paul’s home town, certainly the place of his birth, and perhaps the place of his upbringing. However, since Paul was educated in Jerusalem under Gamaliel (cf. Acts 22:3), and may have claimed to have seen our Lord in the flesh prior to his conversion (2 Cor. 5:16), we believe that Paul spent a number of years in Jerusalem while he was growing up.
37 I believe that the mention of James is significant for he, like Paul, was not one of the original apostles. We know from the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 that James had become perhaps the most prominent leader of the Jerusalem churches. However, he was not an apostle since he did not meet all the qualifications for an apostle as set down by the eleven and recorded in Acts 1:21-22.
38 There is some question as to whether this “fourteen years” is to be reckoned from the time of Paul’s conversion, or from the time of his first visit to Jerusalem, described in Galatians 1:18-20. The outcome has little bearing on the thrust of Paul’s message here.
39 Since Titus is never named in Acts, his mention in Galatians does not conflict with Luke’s account. Luke simply chose not to name him.
40 A. T. Robertson indicates that the form here (present active subjunctive) calls for the rendering “that we should keep on remembering.” Unfortunately the translators of the NASB did not reflect this nuance by their rendering. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), IV, p. 286.
41 Paul has an unusual way of referring to the apostles in chapter 2. He speaks of them as “those who were of reputation” (v. 2, 6). I believe that his purpose is to underscore his purity of motive in not seeking after the praise and approval of men. Who, more than the apostles, “those who were highly regarded,” would Paul wish to please?
42 James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, [reprint] 1972), p. 38.
43 There were considerable differences with respect to the circumstances surrounding Timothy’s circumcision as recorded in Acts 16:1-3. Timothy’s mother was a Jew and his father a Greek (16:1). In Timothy’s case circumcision was for the purpose of giving him a better hearing among the Jews. The circumcision was a cultural concession and not a compromise of the gospel. In the case of Titus, Paul would not concede, for these “false brethren” insisted that one could not be saved apart from circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1).
It should also be said that considerable disagreement exists concerning precisely what happened in regard to Titus. Some think that he actually was circumcised. Some feel that the apostles were pressuring Paul to have Titus circumcised. I do not feel that these conjectures fit the text or the context.
As today is my father’s birthday, I am inclined to reflect upon some of my memories of my father and me. Even though my dad and I had our confrontations, they never lasted long. For example, I remember one occasion at the dinner table when I had corrected my younger brother. Since he was nearly ten years younger than I, I felt that he should obey me. Needless to say, he did not agree with me, and he told me to “shut up.” I then attempted to physically enforce my authority with what I considered to be some needed discipline, but my father intervened. What troubled me at the time was that Dad didn’t seem to think punishment was required in this case. (Now, years later, I have to admit he may have been right.) I had felt our differences should be settled on the basis of whether or not it was right for my brother to tell anyone to “shut up,” and I was angry that my father did not back me up.
As I was obviously losing the argument, I made one last effort and blurted out to my father, “Well, then, you shut up!”
My brother’s comment did not get a response from Dad, but mine certainly did! For a split second I weighed the option of a dramatic act of protest, and actually considered flipping the dinner table upside-down.
Although Dad and I were at odds during this incident, within an hour our differences had been resolved. Dad and I were able to laugh about that incident, and never again was it brought up in a context of debate or disagreement. While our differences at times were intense, they were short-lived.
Some biblical scholars have felt that there was a lasting conflict between Paul and Peter. The 19th century German scholar, F. C. Baur of the University of Tubingen, hypothesized a new “dialectic” method for interpreting the New Testament. It became known as the Tubingen School of Theology. Baur reasoned that there was a deep seated conflict between Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. He determined the authenticity of the New Testament books in accordance with the criteria of this theory. Any book which exhibited tension between Paul and Peter, between law and grace, he considered to be authentic. Furthermore, he interpreted each in light of the alleged tension between Paul and Peter and their divergent doctrinal views.
Galatians 2:11-21 was cited by those in this school as the origin of the conflict between Paul and Peter which intensified as time passed. (I must tell you that few hold Baur’s view on this point today.) However, the two apostles’ differences were few, and those were short-lived. I understand that this incident took place before the Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15. Since Peter defended Paul at the Jerusalem Council, it is clear that Peter quickly responded to Paul’s rebuke. As a matter of fact, Peter and James, who are both prominent in Galatians 2, are prominent in Acts 15 as well.
The incident which Paul recounts is not portrayed as a long-standing debate between himself and Peter; instead, it is reported as proof of Paul’s independence as an apostle. In chapter 1 Paul defends his claim of apostleship; it was not of any human origin or commission, but by divine appointment (1:1). Those who challenged that apostleship had circulated among the Galatian churches preaching a distorted gospel, and these false teachers were worthy of being accursed (1:6-9). These Judaizers, who forced circumcision and law-keeping upon Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:3-4), condemned Paul’s gospel as man-made and man-pleasing (1:10).
Paul counters this charge in the remainder of chapter 1 and in chapter 2. He declared that his conversion was virtually independent of men, since Christ revealed Himself to him and in him (1:13-16). Rather than looking to the apostles in Jerusalem for his message or for approval for his ministry, Paul had little contact with them, visiting Jerusalem and the church leaders only twice in 17 years (1:18; 2:1). On these occasions he did not stay long, and he met with only three of the apostles—Peter, James, and John (cf. 1:18-19; 2:2, 9). Paul did not ask for their approval, but he did seek to work in harmony with them. In contrast to the Judaizers who insisted Titus be circumcised, the apostles did not demand it; on the contrary, they fully accepted Paul and Barnabas as partners in the gospel, giving them the “right hand of fellowship” (2:1-10).
The incident recorded in 2:11-21 is Paul’s final documentation in support of his independence as an apostle. Not only did he not seek the approval of the apostles (1:18-2:10), Paul actually dared to publicly rebuke them when they were inconsistent with the gospel (2:11-21). This is Paul’s last historical proof of his independence as an apostle. In chapters 3 and 4, Paul uses theological proof to show that the Judaizers were seeking to use the Old Testament law in a way that it was never intended to be used. Finally, in chapters 5 and 6, Paul shows how the gospel can produce lives which are godly, something the law could not accomplish.
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Peter’s visit to the church at Antioch probably occurred before the Jerusalem Council. He had apparently been there for some time,44 long enough for it to be observed that his custom (at least while he was with these Gentile Christians) was to live like them, rather than to live as a Jew. Such customs were not new to Peter, for that was the way he had been instructed to associate with Cornelius and the other Gentiles who had gathered at his house (cf. Acts 10).
In time, a party of Jews from Jerusalem arrived. Paul referred to these men as having come “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” Perhaps we should not make too much of Paul’s choice of words here. He may have only meant to refer to the fact that James was recognized as the dominant leader in Jerusalem and that to come from Jerusalem was, in effect, to come from James. On the other hand, James must at least have been informed of this visit and might even have been the initiator of it.45
A sequence of events was set in motion by the arrival of the party “from James” which culminated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Peter gradually46 began to withdraw from the Gentiles and to avoid them. This behavior was most evident at meal time. The subtlety of the change in Peter’s conduct is similar to the change in one’s behavior in response to learning that a loved one is terminally ill. Joseph Bayly describes some of the changes which occur in the behavior of the loved ones of those who are dying:
Nurses have mentioned a pattern of behavior to me: first a wife will kiss her husband on the mouth, then on the cheek, then the forehead, and finally she will blow him a kiss from the door. The change is not lost on him.47
A similar change occurred at the dinner table at Antioch. Apparently the party “from James” ate at first by themselves, while the rest, both Jews and Gentiles, ate together. Then these Jewish guests were joined by Peter and eventually by all the other Jewish Christians (except Paul). Finally, there were two groups at meal time, the Jewish party and the Gentile party. If the church at Antioch observed communion with a common meal as we would expect (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34), the problem then was intensified for their worship had become divided.
When Paul recognized the seriousness of the situation48 he confronted Peter personally and publicly (vv. 11, 14). Peter was corrected before all because the Jews had been wrong to follow him, and the Gentiles had been injured by their actions. Peter was singled out because even in his wrong-doing he was a leader. To correct Peter’s conduct was to correct the problem.
The actions of Peter and those who followed him were clearly identified as sin. Peter was rebuked because he “stood condemned” (v. 11). Paul’s boldness in rebuking Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch was due to the seriousness of this sin. There were several reasons why their relationship to the Gentiles in Antioch (or should I say their response to the Jews from Jerusalem) could not be taken lightly.
(1) The actions of Peter and the others were wrongly motivated. Peter, we are told, acted out of a fear for the “party of the circumcision” (v. 12). It is safe to say that the others were also motivated out of a desire not to offend, either the Judaizers or Peter. Peter, as well as those who followed him in his capitulation to the circumcisers, was guilty of acting as “men-pleasers.”
(2) The actions of Peter and the others caused some to stumble. Verse 13 informs us that Peter’s actions set an example which was followed by the “rest of the Jews,” and that their hypocrisy caused “even Barnabas” to follow. What Peter did, others did after him, following his lead.
(3) The actions of Peter and the others were hypocritical. In verse 13 Paul wrote that the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas,49 “joined him [Peter] in hypocrisy.” The hypocrisy of their actions was based on the fact that what they still believed, they had ceased to practice. They had not deliberately departed from right doctrine: they had simply deviated from it in practice.
(4) The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” (cf. 1:6-7). The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
As previously stated there were several reasons why Peter’s actions (and those who followed him) were wrong. The principle reason, however, is that the truth of the gospel had been forsaken. The gospel in practice had violated the gospel in principle. Verses 14-21 contain three arguments50 which show that such actions deserved rebuke.
The first argument (verse 14) is directed against Peter. Paul stands toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball with Peter, charging him with acting hypocritically. Though Peter was a Jew, he lived as a Gentile, at least during his stay in Antioch. The lesson Peter had learned by means of a divine vision had enabled him to associate with the Gentile Cornelius and the other Gentiles who were gathered in Cornelius’ home (Acts 10). When Peter arrived in Antioch, he lived there according to the customs of the Gentile, and not as a Jew. After the arrival of those who came “from James,” all of this changed. Peter began to live as a Jew, compelling the Gentile believers to live like him (as a Jew) in order to have fellowship with him and the other Jewish believers. What inconsistency! What hypocrisy! If Peter, a Jew, did not need to live like a Jew, why did he demand by his actions that Gentile Christians live like the Jews?
Let me attempt to illustrate the inconsistency of Peter in a way that may be more relevant to us. It is my understanding that Ross Perot’s computer company in Dallas (EDS) has a dress code for its employees. The men who work there are required to have short hair and to dress in a dark suit and tie. Let’s suppose that Mr. Perot suddenly has a change of mind and that he liberalizes the rules so that employees are now permitted either to dress as formerly in shirt, suit, and tie, or, they may now come to work in jeans and T-shirts. It quickly becomes evident that there are two different categories of employee, both of which have the approval of Ross Perot. One is the “old guard” which likes things as they were. They continue to wear dark suits and ties, which is, of course, completely in compliance with the new policy. The other group consists of those wearing T-shirts, jeans, and sneakers.
Soon, problems begin to develop between the two groups. The old guard (like the Pharisees) continues to dress as formerly in suits and ties and begins to pressure the other employees to do likewise. One employee, whom we will call Peter, has belonged to the “old guard,” but when he meets a group of the “avant-guard” who hold a weekly Bible study and prayer time during their lunch break, he becomes a member of their Bible study. To make them feel more at ease, he keeps a change of clothes in his locker so each week he can change into jeans and sneakers before attending the study.
Some of Peter’s friends, members of the “old guard,” ask to attend the study with Peter, but they refuse to dress like the rest, and, offended by Peter’s dress, tell him so. In fact, they refuse to even sit near him when he is wearing a T-shirt and sneakers. In order to remain on good terms with his old friends, Peter not only reverts to the former dress code but slowly withdraws from the other Christians who still dress casually. As a result, the newer group is forced to follow the old dress code or suffer the loss of Peter’s fellowship. Peter is wrong and is worthy of rebuke because he has acted hypocritically. He not only has given up the freedom he once enjoyed in his manner of dress, but he also functionally has forced others to surrender as well.
Verses 15-17 move from Peter’s problem (actually just a symptom) to the very root of the problem, the pride which the Judaizers had in their Jewishness that caused them to feel smugly superior to the Gentile Christians. Verse 15 is virtually the slogan of the Judaizers, mirroring the arrogance which was at the root of the refusal of the men “from James” to eat with the Gentiles: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.”
When I was young, a rhyme we used to repeat went something like this:
Rootie, toot, toot,
Rootie, toot, toot,
We’re the boys from the institute.
We don’t smoke,
And we don’t chew,
And we don’t run around with the girls that do.
Behind this rhyme there is a note of smug superiority. There is likewise a strong sense of superiority behind the words of verse 15. Paul cited these words to reveal the attitude underlying the Jewish withdrawal from fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The Judaizers felt they could not eat with the Gentiles because they were sinners and would continue to be until they were converted to Judaism.
At the root of the Judaizers sense of superiority was a deep-seated racial prejudice. Jews felt that by nature, by birth, they were somehow endowed with a spiritual superiority. This mentality is evident in the Gospels as well (cf. John 4:9; 8:33). The carnal Jew concluded that by virtue of being Jewish he was pious, while the Gentile, by virtue of his birth, was sinful. The only way that such pride could be maintained within Christianity was for the Jewish Christians to insist that the Gentile converts adopt Judaism in addition to trusting in Christ.
Verse 16 corrects this fallacious reasoning, as indicated by the initial word “nevertheless.” Paul reminds Jewish Christians that they were not able to earn justification through law-keeping; rather, like the Gentile Christians, the Jewish believers, too, were justified by faith in Christ.51 Spiritual superiority could not be claimed by the Jewish Christians if they were saved in exactly the same manner as the Gentiles. Thus the smug superiority of some of the Jewish Christians, which caused them to look down their spiritual noses at the Gentiles as sinners, was founded on a misconception.52
In verse 17a Paul drives the point of verse 16 home, which leads to a further question (v. 17b) and answer (v. 18). Those who seek to be saved (justified) by faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, acknowledge their sinful state. Salvation by faith in Christ is only necessary for those who cannot be saved by self-effort, by the “works of the law.” The gospel is based on the fact that all men are equal before God, contrary to the smug statement of verse 15. Acceptance of the gospel is admission of sin and human inability for both Jews and Gentiles.
By nature, both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, so that neither group has any grounds for feeling superior to the other. This argument is also found in the epistle to the Ephesians:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Eph. 2:1-3).
In this passage Paul refers to the Gentile believers as “you” and to the Jewish believers as “we.” His point is that both Jews and Gentiles are dead in their sins, servants of Satan, until they have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
The fact that the gospel views Jews, as well as Gentiles, as sinners, caused the Judaizers much grief. If this were true, they reasoned, then their standing before God was really better under the old covenant than under the new. It seemed to them that the gospel promoted sin, for in the previous dispensation, under the law, the Jews were righteous, and the Gentiles were sinners. However under the new covenant (the gospel), both Jews and Gentiles are each sinners. Doesn’t this mean that if the gospel increases the number of sinners, that Christ must be a minister of sin, promoting sin rather than causing it to cease?53
Such a conclusion is in error. As Paul will demonstrate in Galatians 3 and 4, the law never did save, nor sanctify. The law set a standard which no man (except the Lord Jesus) has ever been able to attain to. Paul’s immediate answer is found in verse 18: “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.”
In order to understand Paul’s answer to the ridiculous charge that Jesus Christ was responsible for increasing sin, we must first understand the mentality of the Judaizer. To the Judaizers, a gospel which repealed the law was responsible for promoting sin, since they believed that the law was able to overcome sin’s power. For the gospel to repeal the law for Gentile converts was to promote sin. When the Judaizer required law-keeping of Gentile converts, he felt he was reducing sin.
Paul’s answer in verse 18 showed that just the opposite was true. To return to a righteousness based upon law-keeping (in Paul’s words, “to rebuild what one had once destroyed”), was to reveal one’s own sinfulness. Instead of Paul’s gospel making Christ a minister of sin, accepting the “different gospel” of the Judaizers proved the one who turned back to be a transgressor. The repeal of the law freed one to live righteously, while a return to the law made sin inevitable.
In verses 19 and 20 Paul establishes the argument of verses 17 and 18 by reviewing what takes place when a sinner turns to faith in Christ. Paul speaks of this in the first person (“I”), but it is evident that he speaks generally of what takes place when any sinner trusts in Christ by faith.
In Christ one dies to the law. The condemnation which the law has pronounced on the sinner is fully borne by the sinner, in Christ. The result is that the sinner dies to the law, so that it can no longer condemn him. The process is carried out “through the law,” reminding us that the gospel is the fulfillment of the law. The law can take the sinner only to the point of condemnation and to the sentence of death. The redemption which the law promised, and of which the sacrificial system was a prototype, could only be accomplished by Christ, the Lamb of God. The result is that the sinner, powerless to live righteously under the law, is now free to live to God (v. 19).
Verse 20 is perhaps the best known passage in the entire book of Galatians, and yet few have come to appreciate it in light of the context of Paul’s rebuke of Peter, whose behavior was inconsistent with the gospel which it summarizes. The thrust of this verse is not so much the need for sanctification, but rather the futility of seeking to live righteously under the law to which the saint has died.
The reason why the gospel has repealed the law is that the law has done its job. It has shown man his sin and has promised him salvation through the shed blood of a coming Savior. The law was never intended to save, nor to sanctify. Verse 20 outlines, in brief, what the gospel has done to save and to sanctify. When a man is saved by faith in Christ, he has died in Christ to the law; Christ now lives within him, enabling him to live righteously. He is now able to live a new life by faith, not by works. This is vastly superior to the old way of life.
The conclusion of Paul’s argument is found in verse 21. There are only two choices in the final analysis, either of which is exclusive of the other: one can live by faith in Christ and experience God’s grace, or he can strive for righteousness under the law and forsake grace. The reason the Judaizers were wrong in insisting that faith should be buttressed by law is that when you choose one, you must forsake the other. Some things (like “love and marriage”) may go together (“You can’t,” as the song says, “have one, without the other”), but not so with law and grace. If the law is sufficient to save and to sanctify, the death of Christ becomes needless.
Surely Paul has proven his point. Neither he nor his gospel was deserving of the label “man-pleasing.” After all, whom would Paul rather please than the leaders of the Jerusalem church? How could the rebuke of Peter (and, by inference, any who agreed with him) possibly be construed to be the result of a compulsion to please men? It was exactly the opposite. The Judaizers sought to please their colleagues, the Pharisees. They were unwilling to “take the heat” for accepting the Gentile Christians on an equal basis with Jewish believers. Conversely, Paul was willing to stand absolutely alone for the truth of the gospel without even Barnabas at his side.
Paul’s authority as an apostle is fundamental to the argument of the book of Galatians, but there are other lessons for us as well. Let us conclude our study by considering the implications of the gospel suggested by this passage.
First, we should learn from this text that much of evangelical error is inferential. Peter had no idea that he was denying the gospel, but he was. He did so, not by his affirmations, but by his actions. By his actions, Peter sided with the Judaizers, who insisted that Gentiles were sinners unless they converted to Judaism in addition to turning to Christ by faith. Christians need to become much more conscious of the implications of their actions, for we can deny in practice what we believe in propositional form. Let us seek to understand the gospel more fully and to live it more consistently.
Second, we should learn that we should expect to be tested on those very points which we believe most emphatically and which we may teach dogmatically. Who, more than Peter, had come to know that eating with the Gentiles was consistent with the will of God? In Acts 10 God instructed Peter to abandon the ceremonial food laws in order to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter defended his actions before his Jewish brethren in Acts 11. In Antioch Peter lived according to the lesson he had learned in Acts 10. Later when some Jewish brethren arrived “from James,” he capitulated.
Under testing Peter abandoned what he believed. The same may be true of James. In the first half of the second chapter of his epistle, James addresses the evil of showing partiality within the church. Did not he himself support this? It is at least possible, since Paul records that the men who came to Antioch were from James. If nothing else, James learned a valuable lesson from Paul which he later conveyed to others in his epistle.
Although these men may have acted inconsistently with the truth, let me be quick to commend them for the change which is evident following Paul’s rebuke of Peter. I believe that the Jerusalem Council followed shortly after this rebuke; yet it was there that Peter and James were the two strongest supporters of the gospel as preached by Paul. They spoke out clearly in defense of Paul’s gospel, and they denied the teaching of the Judaizers (Acts 15:24). The practical prohibitions placed on the Gentiles were intended, I believe, to prevent any further recurrences of division and strife. These men, James and Peter, were great men, for they were willing to respond in a godly way to rebuke.
Third, this passage provides us with a footnote for the matter of private rebuke. We are all aware of the teaching of our Lord in Matthew 18, which instructs us to confront an erring brother privately. Our text in the second chapter of Galatians should inform us that some correction must be done publicly. Public correction is necessary where public error has corrupted others.
The underlying principle of private rebuke, I believe, is that sin should always be dealt with on the smallest possible scale. If we can deal with sin privately, so much the better. According to Matthew 18, it is only when private rebuke fails that public rebuke should follow. Matthew 18 concerns an offense committed by one brother against another. In Galatians 2, Paul publicly rebuked Peter on a different basis. Peter had publicly sinned, not actually against Paul, but against the gospel and against the Gentile Christians. Because Peter’s actions were public and he was a leader, many followed him in his sin. Thus, Paul rebuked him publicly, in order to correct a corporate problem.
A few years ago, after Bill Gothard’s ministry had become public and popular, Joe Bayly publicly challenged Bill to answer some specific questions, which would clarify his teaching. Initially Bill refused, claiming Matthew 18 in his defense and appealing to Joe to speak privately with him. Joe’s response was that Bill had in no way sinned against him personally, but that Bill’s teaching ministry had been public, and some of his students had taken his teaching to ridiculous extremes. Because his teaching and its impact were far reaching, private rebuke would not correct the wrong which had resulted. Fortunately, Bill eventually agreed to clarify his teaching, which Joe published. Joe was right, I believe, and he took a stand when Bill was second only to Moses in the minds of many. Those who err in public may require correction in public.
Let me give you a practical application of this. Every Sunday our church observes the Lord’s Table and provides the men with an opportunity to speak publicly. I am well aware of the sensitivity of some men about public correction. Believe me, there is not one elder who is eager to correct anyone publicly after he has spoken in the church meeting. However, when a man exercises his responsibility to speak, he must also assume responsibility for what he says. If the error is minor, correction may not be needed; however, when the error is serious and far-reaching in its implications, it must be corrected. Those who assume leadership, must be dealt with like leaders—publicly. I say this with great hesitation, realizing fully that this applies to me more than most of you. We are all accountable for what we say and do, but leaders are more so. No one knew this better than James (cf. James. 3:1).
Fourth, we are reminded of the fallibility of the giants of the faith. I sometimes hear preachers speak of Peter’s fallibility as though it somehow terminated in Acts 2, when Peter along with others, was filled with the Holy Spirit. There were great changes in his life, of course, but the gift of the Spirit did not make Peter infallible. Let us be reminded that no matter how spiritual a man may be, he is always capable of sin.
Fifth, we should learn that serious problems can have very beneficial ends. I believe that this incident served to shape the decision of the Jerusalem Council as much or more than any other. It did not, as Baur said, create a rift between Peter and Paul which would only intensify in time. The Jerusalem Council suggests the opposite. The conflict here, as that incident between my father and I many years ago, lasted only a short time, but it led to an ever deepening love and respect for each other. God is always able to take unpleasant incidents and turn them into life-changing lessons.
Finally, we should learn from this passage that our authority comes from biblical principles, more than it does from our position. Stop and think about Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Why do you think Paul was able to stand toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with Peter? Was it because Paul was an apostle? I think not. This incident certainly established Paul’s independence as an apostle, but it was not the basis for his apostleship. Nor was his apostleship the basis for Paul’s confrontation of Peter. The authority for what Paul did was the gospel. He tells the Galatians that he rebuked Peter when he saw that he and the other Jewish believers were not acting in a straightforward way with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). Paul’s actions were therefore based upon principle, not upon position.
Over and over I hear people coming to the elders of our church, asking what the elders are going to do about a certain problem in someone’s life. We try to point out that the Bible never lays the responsibility for correction on the elders, per se, but on the individual who is aware of the sin. It is this brother or sister who is to go to the sinning saint and rebuke him and only then take it to the church if they refuse to repent. Underlying the passing of the buck of correction to the leaders of the church is the assumption that correction is not “their place.” The issue involved in correction is not your position, but God’s principles. In this instance in Galatians, the principles of the gospel warranted rebuke, even when those in error were those who held the position of authority. Let each of us seek to be men and women of principle and seek to protect the truth of the gospel, regardless of our position, and regardless of the position of those whom we must rebuke. Let me remind you, however, that rebuke is to be based upon principle, not on personal convictions, or on personal preferences, or perspectives.
It is my opinion that the Christians of this generation lack courage, the kind of courage manifested by Paul. One reason for this is that we are not people of principle, and we understand inadequately the principles of the Word of God. Let us strive to be men and women like Paul, people of principle and of courage, willing to stand on and to stand by the Word of God, regardless of who we must oppose.
May God enable you to submit to the truth of the gospel by personally trusting in Christ for salvation. Then may He enable each of us, as Christians, to seek to practice and to preserve the truth of the gospel, even when this requires rebuke.
44 The tense of the Greek verb, translated “used to eat” by the NASB, is imperfect, which implies that some time had passed and that this was the habit of Peter—to eat with the Gentiles, like a Gentile.
45 It is difficult to determine what part, if any, James may have had in the arrival of this party. On the one hand, it is possible that James knew nothing whatever of the mission of these men, but this seems unlikely in light of the fact that Paul chose the expression “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” These men may have claimed to have come “from James” in order to enhance their influence and to further their Judaistic views. On the other hand, it could be that James actually sent these men to Antioch. Acts 21:17-26 is informative concerning this matter. On Paul’s returned to Jerusalem here, he was met by James and all the elders (v. 18). They expressed the concern of some of the believing Jews, who were zealous for the law (v. 20), that Paul was teaching the Jews who lived amongst the Gentiles that they should cease to live as Jews (v. 21). This was very close to the conduct of Peter while in Antioch, and word of this may have reached Jerusalem so that a delegation was sent by James to investigate the matter. This delegation was likely more zealous for the law than James, similar to the group described in Acts 21:20-21. The party “from James” may have taken it upon themselves to straighten out Peter and Paul. We are not told the reason for the arrival of this party, and thus it was not vital to the point which Paul was making.
46 Both verbs are in the imperfect tense, which suggests a gradual change in Peter’s conduct, rather than a glaring, instantaneous, change. Also, Paul informs us in verse 14 that he publicly rebuked Peter when he “saw” what had happened, suggesting that the change in Peter’s actions, as well as the other Jewish believers, was gradual and only finally recognized (“seen”) by Paul.
47 Joseph Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), p. 36.
48 Some have suggested that Paul may have been gone at the time Peter arrived and the problem originated. Thus, he would have dealt decisively with Peter and the others when he returned. I think it is more likely that the problem gradually developed and that Paul finally saw the matter for what it was. Thus, the apostle tells us he “saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). The implications of this incident took some time to come into focus, at which time Paul acted decisively.
49 It is with particular dismay that Paul is forced to inform us that “even Barnabas” was guilty of falling in line with the Judaizers. From verse 13 we know that Barnabas was influenced by the hypocrisy of the whole group, while the other Jews merely followed Peter (compare “their hypocrisy” in verse 13b with “the Jews joined him in hypocrisy” in 13a). Barnabas may thus have been the last to fall into this error. The shocking thing about his capitulation is that he had been so enthusiastic about God’s work among the Gentile converts (cf. Acts 11:22-23). Remember, however, that it was the apostles from Jerusalem who had first sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:21). Barnabas may have felt some obligation to the party which had come “from James,” and after everyone fell into line with the circumcision party, he may finally have felt compelled to join them as well. We learn from this incident that Paul, alone, stood against the other Jews on behalf of the gospel. While he and Barnabas had stood together in refusing to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5), Paul stood alone against Peter. This adds weight to Paul’s claim to have been independent of the other apostles and to his defense that he was not a man-pleaser.
50 I believe that the change in pronouns in these verses is a significant clue to the development of Paul’s argument. In verse 14, the argument is directed toward Peter, and thus the pronoun is “you.” In verses 15-17 the principle pronoun is “we,” indicating that Paul is now speaking to the Jews. In verses 18-21 the pronoun changes to “I,” where the principles of the gospel become much more personal. Paul thus argues from the general (“you” and “we”) to the specific (“I”).
51 The “we” of verse 16 refers to the Jewish Christians.
52 There is a great deal of difference between “privilege” and “superiority.” In Romans 3:1, 2 and 9:4-5 Paul lists some of the privileges which were bestowed upon the Jews, but this did not suggest superiority, for “to whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48).
53 There are numerous attempts to explain the question of verse 17, but this seems best to me. Whenever Paul uses the expression,”May it never be!” (cf. Rom. 6:2, 15; Gal. 3:21), it is response to a question which has been asked, which is a wrong conclusion, based upon a correct premise. The gospel did prove the Jews to be sinners, like the Gentiles, but this did not mean that Christ could be accused of promoting sin.
In the 1929 Rose Bowl, Georgia Tech was playing the University of California when the ball popped out of the hands of a Georgia Tech back. Roy Riegels, the University of California center, scooped it up and cut across the field. Then, finding himself hemmed in, he reversed his field. It was at this point that Riegels lost his bearings and began to run down field in the wrong direction. He broke loose, dashing toward the wrong end zone. Seventy thousand fans watched Reigels dumbfounded as Graham McNamee, the radio announcer, shouted into the microphone as Riegels crossed the 50-yard line: “What’s the matter with me? Am I crazy?”
The crowd shouted at Riegels in vain attempt to turn him around. His teammate, Benny Lom, pursued Roy downfield, screaming at him from behind to turn back. Finally Lom was forced to tackle his own teammate one yard short of scoring for the other team. When the University of California team attempted to kick out of their own end zone, it was Riegels who centered the ball. The kick was blocked by Georgia Tech and rolled out of the end zone—a safety. That safety won the game for Georgia Tech, by a score of 8-7.
Nine years later “wrong way Corrigan” flew his plane from the East coast of the United States bound for California. He reached Ireland instead. In this instance, there was some question as to whether “wrong way Corrigan” really made a mistake or just wanted to attempt something not accomplished before in a plane of his type. Apparently Corrigan, hoping to set a new world record, had applied for permission to fly to Ireland in his small plane, but permission had been denied him. A friend of mine knew Corrigan’s mechanic and asked him if the trip to Ireland was a mistake or a deliberate decision. The mechanic said he couldn’t say for sure, but it was really difficult to find a place for the extra fuel tanks Corrigan had ordered installed in the plane!
There seems to be a considerable difference between the Corrigan “error,” which landed him in Ireland, and Roy Riegels confusion on the football field which won the game for Georgia Tech. The Judaizers’ error was similar to that of Corrigan—more deliberate than accidental. These men perverted the gospel by demanding that law-keeping be added to faith. Worse yet, they not only practiced this error but propagated it amongst the Gentile believers, thus corrupting the church. Peter’s error, described in Galatians 2, was more like that of Roy Riegels. Peter momentarily lost his bearings and gave way to the Judaizers, thereby compromising the gospel. Paul’s rebuke, unlike the shouts of Benny Lom, turned Peter around.
The Galatians, like Peter, had become disoriented in their doctrine and in their conduct. At least some of the Gentile Galatian saints had adopted the view of the Judaizers. They were willing to submit to the rite of circumcision, thereby obligating themselves to keep the whole Old Testament law. In Galatians 1 and 2, Paul has defended his apostleship against the charges of the Judaizers. In chapters 3 and 4, Paul vindicates his gospel against the “different gospel” charges of the Judaizers. In verses 1-9 Paul turns to the experience of the Galatians (vv. 2-5) and that of Abraham (vv. 6-9) to show that salvation and sanctification both are the result of faith, apart from law-keeping. In verse 10 Paul addresses the subject of the law, explaining what it can and cannot do.
Just as Paul dealt with the error of Peter in chapter 2, so he sets forth in the first verse of chapter 3 why the faith of the Galatians faltered: “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”
Here we find several issues emphasized which require a very direct approach by the Apostle Paul. To orient ourselves to the issues which underlie chapters 3 and 4 of this epistle, let us consider these.
First, Paul stresses the gullibility of the Galatians. In certain contexts the word “foolish” can imply a lack of “gray matter”—a low intelligence, but this is not Paul’s point here. The Greek term is the antonym of the word for wisdom. The willfulness of the Galatians in wandering from the truth is evident to Paul. Their foolishness was deliberate and therefore deserving of a rebuke. The bluntness of the word “foolish” is intended, I believe, to jar these saints from their error, and to quicken their interest and attention in what Paul is about to say.
This term “foolish” is not only discomforting; it is humbling. I believe that this error, like most which creep into the church, was held with a fair measure of pride. Error of this kind appeals to one’s pride. The Galatians likely claimed a new level of truth, a higher level of spirituality. This was certainly true of the teachers of this “different gospel.” Paul strategically used the word “foolish” to challenge the pride of those who professed to be newly enlightened.
Second, Paul exposes the guile of the Judaizers who taught this “new gospel.” The term “bewitched” was pregnant with meaning to the first readers of this epistle. A “hex” or “spell” was cast on another by giving him the “evil eye.” In his commentary F. F. Bruce stresses this nuance when he renders the term “hypnotized.”54 Barclay cites this closing, commonly found in ancient Greek letters: “Above all I pray that you may be in health unharmed by the evil eye and faring prosperously.”55
While the Galatians were foolish to have fallen for such teaching, Paul acknowledges that those who taught such heresy were indeed cunning characters. They had, so to speak, cast an evil spell on the Galatians. Their teaching had the effect of mentally disarming the saints so as to convince them of doctrine which should have been seen as false.
Third, Paul seeks to contrast the method with which he preached the gospel to the Galatians with the method of the Judaizers. There is a word-play which was evident to the Galatians. It highlighted the contrast in Paul’s method of proclaiming the gospel with that of the Judaizers. The Judaizers’ gospel had “bewitched” the Galatians by giving them the “evil eye.” Paul’s preaching had converted them by portraying Christ before their very eyes.
The expression “publicly portrayed” is the rendering of one Greek term. Literally, it means, “to write before,” and thus could refer to something previously written. Here the term means to portray before someone’s eyes. There are numerous examples of this usage in the papyri, the ancient Greek documents which have been discovered and translated. There is, for example, in one, the public announcement by a father, stating that he is no longer liable for his son’s debts, and in another, the announcement of an auction. I suspect that this Greek term might be used today for signs which we post along the street to advertise garage sales. Thus, we might view Paul’s presentation of the gospel as deliberately visible.
I believe that by the use of these two expressions (“bewitched” and “publicly portrayed”) Paul is contrasting his methodology with that of the Judaizers. Their method is underhanded, secretive, and subtle. Paul’s method is direct, open, and public. I sense the same contrast that we find in the book of Proverbs. Wisdom is portrayed as publicly calling forth, speaking forthrightly, inviting all to gain knowledge. Folly is more secretive and seductive; her appeal is to that which is either forbidden or unavailable to the masses. Error is sneaky while truth is straightforward. Error is offered to the elite—truth, to the all.
Fourth, Paul once again tells us the central truth of the gospel—Christ crucified. Paul proclaimed Christ. He was always the essence, the focal point of Paul’s preaching. More than this, though, Paul preached Christ crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18; 2:2; 15:3). Many then, as now, would gladly speak of Christ as an example, an inspiring teacher, a man committed to truth and justice. But Paul, however, spoke of Christ who was hung upon a Roman cross and put to death for the sins of men. It is the death of Christ followed by His resurrection and ascension which is central to Paul’s teaching and doctrine. You will not find Christ apart from His cross in Paul’s gospel. To the Jews, the cross was a stumbling block; to the Gentiles, an offense (1 Cor. 1:23). Paul was not a man-pleaser and so the crucified Christ was his message to all men.
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Last year I learned a little lesson about staying with “the program.” Before leaving on a trip to India, all of my airline arrangements had been made here, in advance. Once I had established my travel plans and purchased my tickets, the airline made no provision for change, and I’m sure there are plenty of reasons for this policy. What this meant was that I had to keep within the schedule at every point. When my wife Jeannette joined me in Bombay, we decided it would be nice to leave a day early and spend one day in Bangkok. To us, it was a very simple matter; all we had to do was leave Bombay one day early, and then catch the same plane we were to meet the following day in Bangkok—really no problem at all—or so we thought. We learned quickly the realities of air travel!
In Paul’s dispute with the Galatians he claimed that in adopting the teachings of the Judaizers the Galatians had departed from the principle of faith by which they had begun as believers. In verses 2-5 Paul asks a simple question, requiring a simple answer; yet the answer had profound implications. The question is a fundamental one, for by establishing one fact Paul can prove the genuineness of his gospel: “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” (v. 2)
When Paul speaks of “receiving the Holy Spirit,” he is referring to the salvation of the Gentiles. In verse 3 Paul makes this very clear by the expression, “Having begun by the Spirit …” There is a very good reason for Paul’s selection of this expression. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter described the conversion of Cornelius and his household (all Gentiles), speaking of the fact that God had given these people the Holy Spirit, since He knew their hearts (Acts 15:8). Peter used a similar expression in Acts 11 when he was called on the carpet by the Jerusalem (Jewish) saints for preaching Christ to the Gentiles. Peter’s response to them was a detailed account of God’s leading, concluding with these words: “If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:17).
The fact that God had saved the Gentiles and accepted them, evidenced by the same gift of the Holy Spirit, compelled the Jewish Christians to accept the conversion of the Gentiles. Some of these same Jewish Christians later conceded to the accusation of the Judaizers that the Gentiles, apart from circumcision and the keeping of the law, had an inferior status (cf. Acts 15:1, 5). By referring to their reception of the Holy Spirit, Paul sought to remind the Galatian saints of their equal status in Christ.
In addition to this, Paul sought to remind the Galatian Christians of the means by which they received the blessing of the Holy Spirit. There were two possibilities presented in this context: either they received the Holy Spirit as the result of faith or as the result of works. Faith is referred to by the expression, “hearing with faith,”56 while works are called “the works of the Law.”
The “works of the Law” were those deeds which would be done in compliance with the Old Testament law as demanded by the Judaizers. To suggest that the Gentiles were saved by law-keeping was ridiculous. They formerly had not been under the law, and Paul never required law-keeping for salvation. No, the Galatians had been saved by the hearing of the gospel which was accompanied by faith. The Spirit of God quickened the Galatians and enabled them to understand and respond to the gospel (cf. Titus 3:5). There was no disputing this fact.
The implications of this fact are significant. How could the Galatians be so foolish to suppose that they were saved by faith and yet sanctified by works? If keeping the law cannot save, how can it possibly sanctify? Do you remember the account in chapter 2 of the gospel of Mark in which the paralytic was lowered through the roof? Our Lord’s first words to this man were, “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). This statement raised a very logical question in the minds of the scribes and Pharisees: How could any man have the authority to forgive sins, a power which belongs only to God? Jesus responded with a question: Which is easier, to tell a man that his sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk? If one is able to do the greater, than surely he can do the lesser. On the other hand, to be unable to do the lesser surely suggests an inability to do the greater. Since faith was sufficient to save, it was also sufficient to sanctify. If, on the other hand, law-keeping cannot save (as we have already seen in Gal. 2:16), neither can it sanctify. The opposite sort of reasoning (or the lack of it) exhibited by the Galatians was rightly labeled “foolish” by the apostle.
Verse 3 presses home the point of verse 2. Having begun by faith, why did the Galatians fail to follow through faith to completion of what the Holy Spirit began. Why were they so foolish as to trust in the work of Christ by faith for salvation, and afterward hope to finish the process by a means which was inadequate to commence it? Paul’s argument is based upon a principle which is both logical and biblical: the means for justification is the same means for sanctification.57
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6).
As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude (Col. 2:6).58
Consider this simple illustration of the principle which Paul is addressing. Do you remember how you first learned to swim? At first, if you are like me, you fought the water, trying desperately to keep yourself above. Yet the harder you tried to keep yourself up, the more exhausted you became. Eventually you would drown. Then you learned a very interesting and encouraging fact: While you could not keep yourself above the water, the water itself could keep you up. The first lesson to teach a person to swim is to teach him to float. The more we relax, the more we sense the security of the water to keep us afloat. Once we have learned that we can always trust the water to keep us up, we can then advance to learning how to move about in the water. We can learn different strokes. We can swim on our stomachs or on our backs. We can even swim under the water.
How foolish it would be, once we have learned that the water will keep us afloat, to turn from this truth and once again strive to keep ourselves up by working with all our might to do so. How much wiser to work with the water, rather than against it. The fundamental principle which keeps us from drowning is the same principle which underlies everything we do in the water. Having learned to trust the water to keep us afloat, how foolish to later reject this truth.
Verse 4 raises the subject of suffering. Apparently the suffering of the Galatian Christians was a sore point, one on which the Judaizers must have dwelt. It would seem that the Judaizers had an appealing alternative to suffering and adversity. If the source of the suffering was the persecution of the Jewish unbelievers, as it sometimes was (cf. Acts 14:1-7), the Judaizers might have suggested that keeping the law would appease their anger and thus eliminate or at least alleviate suffering. Another possibility was that the Judaizers tended to oversimplify the Old Testament teaching, concluding that blessing was the result of law-keeping, while suffering was the consequence of neglecting the Law. If the Gentile Christians would only submit to the Law, the Judaizers may have taught, then they would not suffer God’s wrath.
Contrary to the Judaizers’ belief that suffering was an unnecessary evil, Paul and Barnabas taught that it was unavoidable and that the real evil would be to have suffered in vain. Both Paul and Barnabas had taught that suffering was an inescapable part of their Christian experience, something which they must endure (Acts 14:22). While Paul does not consider the Galatians a lost cause, nor their sufferings a vain experience, surely the Judaizers promoted this possibility. What a waste, Paul protested, to have invested so heavily in the gospel, only to cast it all away by a foolish decision to follow the teachings of the Judaizers. The Judaizers thought of suffering as a needless waste, whereas Paul thought of sufferings as wasted by the believer who forsakes grace to put himself under law.
Verse 5 turns from the past to the present. Paul asks a second question. Did the believer receive the Holy Spirit by faith or by works? Paul wants the Galatians to recognize the source of the Spirit’s on-going, gracious, miraculous ministry. By what principle does God so graciously bestow His blessings through His Spirit? Is it the principle of faith or the principle of works? “Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith” (v. 5)?
In verses 2 and 3 Paul focuses more on the beginnings of the Spirit’s working in the life of the Galatian saints. In verse 5, Paul presses his readers to identify the basis for God’s on-going blessings in their lives. If law-keeping is so important—as the Judaizers were insisting it was—then what does law-keeping produce? Is “works” the basis for God’s blessings? Then surely works would be worth the effort (assuming, of course, that they could bring about blessing). It is not behaving that moves God to act graciously but believing. It is by the “hearing with faith” that God’s blessings are realized.
Verse 5 teaches us several truths which I believe we dare not overlook. First, Paul reminds the Galatians of the generosity of God in their lives. The word “provides” in verse 5 fails to convey the abundance of the provision of God as suggested by the original term.59 Herein lies a clue to the error of legalism, so evident in the teaching of the Judaizers. They tended to look upon God as miserly and condemning. It was as though God hated to bless and that He must be bribed by the good works of men which moved Him (begrudgingly) into action. Grace and generosity are bed-fellows, just as are severity and legalism.
Second, note the emphasis on the greatness of God’s power as He continually bestows grace in the lives of His people. The Spirit who is so generously given, also greatly works among the people of God. The Spirit, which was first made manifest by miraculous signs, is still spoken of as a miracle-working Person. While this should not be taken as a proof-text for those who expect miracles as a norm, neither should those who differ fail to observe that miracles need not cease. The exact nature of the miracles (cf. “works of power,” v. 5, NASB, margin)60 is not defined, so we dare not speculate. The point Paul is seeking to drive home is that the same God who manifested His power in saving the Gentiles continues to work in them in a mighty, even miraculous, way.
It would seem that this point would strike at the weakness of the Judaizers. The more one is convinced of the greatness of God’s power, the less he is inclined to depend upon himself or his own works. To stress the works of the law implies God’s lack of ability (countered by an emphasis on God’s power) or His lack of willingness (countered by an emphasis on His graciousness) to act. If God is both gracious and great in power, believing is all that is required. Belief (faith) relies on God to act; law-keeping suggests that man has to take matters into his own hands (“God helps those who help themselves”).
Third, Paul views God’s interest and activity in the lives of His people as on-going. Verses 2 and 3 focus upon the initial aspects of the Galatians’ faith; verse 5 dwells on the continuity of God’s working in the lives of these saints. Was it possible that the Judaizers, like some people today, supposed that God intervened in order to save men, but sanctification was something men had to do for themselves? If so, they were wrong, for Paul sees salvation as the beginning of God’s life-long involvement in the lives of His own.
6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.
Paul seems to have won the debate already. Had he not demonstrated from the experience of the Galatian Christians that it was faith which was the basis for their salvation just as it was also the basis for their sanctification? The Judaizers, however, could protest on several counts. Was this not an argument based upon experience? The Judaizers might counter that the gospel which Paul preached, was something new and novel—a radical departure from the Old Testament Scriptures and from the “faith of their fathers.” Lest this argument of the Judaizers go unanswered, Paul presses the principle of faith (as opposed to works) to its founder.
Abraham was the founding father of Judaism, so far as the scribes and Pharisees were concerned. The Jews erroneously took pride in being Abraham’s physical offspring, and they were confident of God’s acceptance and blessing on this account (cf. Matt. 3:9; John 8:33). Abraham was the first to be identified in Scripture as saved by faith (Gen. 15:6), and Paul seizes upon this fact to show the Galatians that the principle of faith is not new at all, but as old as God’s first dealings with men. Since the Judaizers appealed to Abraham, Paul did so also to prove that Abraham established the principle of faith, not works.
Verse 6 begins with the words “even so,” integrating verses 6-9 with the argument of verses 2-5. Were the Galatian saints saved and sanctified by faith? So, too, was Abraham as recorded in Genesis 15:6 (years before Abraham or his son was circumcised, cf. 17:22-27). Moses, who wrote the Law, also wrote that Abraham was justified on the basis of his “hearing of faith,” just like the Gentiles had been.61
While the Judaizers believed that their physical descent from Abraham was the key to their acceptance and blessing by God, Paul maintained that it is those who by faith are believers in God are really Abraham’s sons (verse 7). It is faith, not physical descent that constitutes a person as Abraham’s son.
The Judaizers saw their physical relationship to Abraham as the basis for their superiority over the Gentiles. Paul has already alluded to this “superiority complex” in chapter 2: “We are Jews by nature [that is, by birth], and not sinners from among the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15).
In verse 8 Paul reminds his readers of the promise which God gave to Abraham and shows us from this promise that God had included the Gentiles as the recipients of His blessing. God had promised Abraham that in him all the nations would be blessed. Did the Abrahamic covenant give hope to the Jews? Of course it did. However, it also gave hope to the Gentiles—-a fact which the Judaizers had chosen to overlook.
Paul went so far as to call this passage in Genesis the “preaching of the gospel” (Gal. 3:8). The gospel was not new, nor was the principle of faith. It could be seen as far back as the Abrahamic Covenant. Once again, the Judaizers were wrong. With Abraham, all those who are of faith, including the Gentiles, are blessed (v. 9).
Paul was certainly accurate in referring to the teaching of the Judaizers as a “different gospel.” The gospel Paul preached was the public proclamation of salvation through faith in Christ crucified. His gospel was a matter of faith (vv. 2, 5, 6-9), not works (vv. 2, 5). His gospel relied on the power of the Holy Spirit (vv. 2, 3, 5); theirs on the works of the flesh (v. 3). His gospel did not discriminate against the Gentiles, but theirs did (vv. 6-9). To capitulate to the Judaizers (as Peter had done) or to surrender to circumcision (as some of the Galatians were doing) was no small matter. To follow this “different gospel” was to turn from the way in which they had been saved and from the way in which they were being sanctified. “Wrong-way Corrigan” looks good in comparison.
Our text has much to say to Christians today as well as to the Galatians. As we seek to apply the truths of this passage to our lives, let us consider three principles which this text teaches.
First, we should learn the expediency of experience. While I have always considered the book of Galatians to be a heavy doctrinal book, let us not overlook that experience has played a strong role thus far in the argument of the epistle. When Paul’s authority and integrity as an apostle was challenged (cf. 1:10), Paul’s defense was an account of his experience. First, he described his salvation and early years as a Christian (1:11-24). Then, he told of his later experience in Jerusalem (2:1-10) and in Antioch where he found it necessary to confront and correct Peter (2:11-21). Furthermore, in the first nine verses of chapter 3, a doctrinal section, Paul’s argument is based upon the experience of the Galatians (vv. 2-5) and that of Abraham (vv. 6-9).
I do not in any way wish to minimize the importance of sound doctrine, but only to underscore the fact that we must experience sound doctrine. Suppose for a moment that the Galatians had not experienced the grace of God in their lives through faith, either in salvation or subsequently. Paul would have little grounds for an appeal to them, at least on the basis of their experience. It is my opinion that many of those who “fall away” from orthodox Christianity, either in doctrine or practice (or both), have failed to experience the Spirit of God in their lives. Christians who opt for divorce have falsely concluded that Christianity doesn’t work, when in reality they have not put Christianity to work in their lives. Their marriage has failed to experience the grace of God, not because God has failed them, but because they have failed to experience God’s grace and power in the healing of their relationship. There is no despair any greater than that of the Christian who concludes that his faith doesn’t work. Paul’s appeal to the Galatians was on the basis of how their faith had worked.
My orientation in the past few years has been strongly cerebral and creedal. That is, I have greatly benefited from those who have placed a very strong emphasis on sound doctrine. Yet, sound doctrine is not sufficient. Sound doctrine must be accompanied by a lifestyle which manifests the grace and power of God through His Spirit. This is an area which needs improvement in my life, and I would suspect that this is true for you as well.
Second, continuity is the basis for consistency. The thrust of Paul’s teaching in our passage is that we must continue as we have begun. As we were saved by faith, so we must walk by faith. As God’s Spirit was given and as He continues to minister mightily within us by faith, so we must continue on by faith. If we began by faith, we must press on in the same way. Thus, there is no need to “change horses in mid-stream” by seeking to please and serve God by law-keeping, as the Judaizers have insisted.
My concern here is with the underlying principle which enables Paul to appeal to us to keep on as we first began. Why are we to continue as we began, rather than to change (from grace to law)? Simply, because the gospel never changes, just as God does not change! We keep on as we have begun because the gospel does not change. The same principles on which we were saved are those by which we are sanctified. This helps me to better understand some of the terminology in the Bible. When Paul says that we grow “from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17), I understand that I do not leave faith behind in my growth as a Christian, but I grow in faith to even greater faith. God is both the “Author and the Finisher of our faith” (Heb. 12:2); its beginning and its culmination. All things, we are told, “are of Him, and through Him, and unto Him” (Rom. 11:36). He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Rev. 1:8; 2:8; 22:13).
This is not what the Judaizers were saying. They taught that while faith in Christ was sufficient to save, “real spirituality” required something more, something better: the addition of law-keeping. In other words, change was the key to spiritual growth and maturity, not continuation. We hear something very similar today when people tell us that we need to have a second blessing, a second work of grace, some greater experience of a different and higher order than what we have previously experienced.
Such teaching looks at the Christian experience similar to the launching of a space rocket. Our reaching the goal of godliness requires us to have several “stages.” The gospel is the “first stage.” By it, we are set in motion. Eventually, they believe that stage burns out, requiring the ignition of the “second stage,” which may be a second work of grace, dedication, or some other dramatic crisis experience. According to this erroneous viewpoint, after several such “stagings,” we can expect to arrive at maturity and godliness.
Paul knows of no such thing. In our passage he views the Christian’s experience as a continual process of growth in grace, and according to the gospel by which he first was saved. Yes, the Christian will grow and will change, but the gospel does not change; we change as we understand and apply it more fully in our lives. The difficulty with us is that we think the gospel is what we need to be saved but then we set it aside. However, it is the gospel which provides us not only with the way of salvation, but with the way of sanctification. We fail desperately when we preach the gospel to the unsaved, and then fail to follow through with those who come to know the Lord by teaching the continuing process of the gospel in the life of the believer. In Galatians chapter 2, Peter’s failure, even in his maturity, was to cease to live in accordance with the gospel. We, too, must live according to the gospel.
This principle of continuity is the reason why the New Testament instructs us to regularly observe the Lord’s Table, as we do at Community Bible Chapel. The remembrance of communion not only reminds us of how our salvation commenced but also how it must continue. We can never hear the gospel enough. We can never fully grasp the gospel in this life. Until our Lord takes us home, we should not cease to reflect on the gospel, seeking to understand it more fully, and to apply it more consistently.
Third, we find the principle that discontentment is the basis for deception and disobedience. As I have been thinking through the book of Galatians, I have been puzzled by what possible reason, what conceivable basis, there would be for the Galatian saints to set aside the gospel for “a different gospel.” By using the terms “foolish” and “bewitched,” Paul indicates that this change is completely unreasonable. What then precipitated the basis for setting aside the gospel? I think I have been helped by attributing much of the reason to discontent. When we are discontent with our circumstances, we are overly eager to find a way out, a “better” way. That better way for the Galatians was the “different gospel” of the Judaizers, which promised a higher level of spirituality.
Communism has mastered the ability to utilize discontentment to peddle the unsound dogmas of socialism. While their message (socialism) is unworkable, their method (dialectic) is very effective. They capitalize on discontent, especially the discontent which is related to the different social or economic classes. If there is no discontent, they promote it. Then, after people are sufficiently discontented with things as they are, the Communists offer a better world, but one that must be brought about through revolution and upheaval.
The Communists did not invent this strategy. This methodology comes straight from the pit of hell. We find this very strategy employed in the temptation of Adam and Eve which resulted in the fall of man. Satan “bewitched” Eve, turning her mind away from the grace and generosity of God evidenced by the variety and freedom given them in the garden. Out of the vast variety of God’s provision in the garden, Satan focused her attention on the one, forbidden tree. God, he implied, is really miserly and has withheld the best for Himself alone. Having aroused discontentment in Eve, Satan offered her a higher level of spirituality. “You,” he promised, “can be like God Himself.” Now, being human did not seem like such a blessing. Would it not be preferable to be divine, rather than human? Thus Eve’s discontent with herself as God had made her and with the blessings He had given her made the forbidden fruit look all the more inviting. The means to a higher spiritual existence was to obtain a higher spiritual understanding, “knowing good and evil.” But the price was high—disobedience to God.
The Judaizers seemed to capitalize on, or perhaps even sought to create, discontentment in the thinking of the Galatians. Was persecution (cf. 3:4) the basis of their discontent? We do not really know. I believe it is safe to say that the Judaizers, like Satan, offered a higher, illicit, spiritual state. This new plane was to be reached by a knowledge of what was good and what was evil—a legalistic system, which clearly defined the rightness or wrongness of everything. Paul states that the bottom line is disobedience and the surrender of faith for works and grace for law.
Is it possible that Satan has been seeking to create discontentment in your life? Temptation may come even at a time when you desperately hope for a higher spiritual existence. You may encounter a bewitching teacher with a system that appears to be so appealing and so alluring that though the teaching may be one to which you would normally not succumb, your heightened desire for a utopian experience, your despair of suffering, or your discouragement with a seemingly unspectacular spiritual state may tempt you to fall victim to that false teaching. Contentment is the cure, not change of doctrine.
To be sure there are times and things about which we should not be content. Complacency is contentment gone to seed. Complacency is being in bad shape and not caring one whit about it. The Laodicean Christians had such an attitude. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the discontentment which makes us eager for change, any change, and vulnerable to deception. Let us learn to be content, without complacency, and without the compulsion to seek change.
Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me (Phil. 4:11-13).
54 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), pp. 147-148.
55 William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976 [revised edition]), p. 24. (Barclay here quotes from Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, No. 14.)
56 In my opinion the literal expression “hearing of faith” is significant in the light of the error Paul is refuting. Hearing is a passive term which stresses our response to the working of God, as opposed to the active concept of works advocated by the Judaizers
57 Virtually the same Greek words (translated “having begun” and “being perfected”) which are found in Galatians 3:3, are also used in 2 Corinthians 8:6 of Titus completing that which he had previously begun. The only difference is the Greek prefix pro added to the first term. Just as “follow-through” is important in almost any sport, so it is essential to the Christian walk. We must continue, “follow through,” just as we have begun—by faith. To attempt to add law-keeping to faith is to depart from the faith by which we were saved.
58 Notice the verse (8), which immediately follows, warning of the dangers of false teaching which stresses legalism. It is the sufficiency of Christ alone which saves and sanctifies, not asceticism and self-abuse (vv. 9ff.).
59 “The root of this word is the Greek choregia. In the ancient days in Greece at the great festivals the great dramatists like Euripides and Sophocles presented their plays; Greek plays all have a chorus; to equip and train a chorus was expensive, and public-spirited Greeks generously offered to defray the entire expenses of the chorus. (That gift is described by the word choregia.) Later, in war time, patriotic citizens gave free contributions to the state and choregia was used for this, too. In still later Greek, in the papyri, the word is common in marriage contracts and describes the support that a husband, out of his love, undertakes to give his wife. Choregia underlines the generosity of God, a generosity which is born of love, of which the love of a citizen for his city and of a man for his wife are dim suggestions.” Barclay, p. 25.
60 The Greek term which is translated “miracles” in verse 5 is not always a reference to miracles as we might think. The term may refer to God’s power in various manifestations. For example, in Romans 1:16 the gospel is the “power” (the same Greek term, though singular) of God unto salvation. My point here is that this verse does not require miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit in order for God’s power to be manifested through the Spirit. It should also be pointed out that verse 5 stresses that it is God who provides the Spirit and is working mightily in His saints.
61 The difference is that Abraham was saved on the basis of his faith in the Christ who would come (cf. John 8:56), while the Galatians were saved on the basis of their faith in the Christ who had come. Some might disagree, insisting that in the context of Genesis 15:6, Abraham’s faith was in God’s promise of a son, but in Galatians 3:16 Paul presses the force of the singular “seed” to show that this promise was specifically a promise of the Son who would come in the course of time, not just the son who would be the offspring of Abraham and Sarah.
In June of 1967 my wife, our daughter Beth, and I were on our way to Dallas from our home in the Pacific Northwest to attend Dallas Seminary. We had loaded all of our possessions in our trailer. There was only one problem. We were able to go only one block before we had to stop. The reason: I had attempted to “beat the system” by building my own trailer. I had purchased a single axle, 6 x 12 foot trailer, and to be extra cautious I had put on new tires and added an extra leaf to the springs. Empty, the tongue of the trailer was so heavy one man could barely lift it. And I was planning to pull this heavily loaded trailer 2,300 miles behind my little Rambler.
As our day of departure drew near, friends and relatives came to help us load. It was almost impossible to put everything into that trailer, and we had to reload several times. The back of our Rambler nearly touched the ground, and the trailer actually did drag the ground. The springs had bottomed out, the axle was firmly fixed against the frame, and the tires were rubbing against the sides of the trailer. We drove one block and realized to our dismay that we could never reach Dallas in that trailer.
The next day, we unhooked the trailer, drove into the city, and rented a 7 x 14 foot U-Haul trailer. The trailer hardly settled on its springs, having been designed to easily handle the weight of our worldly goods. The back of our little Rambler wagon actually cleared the ground, connected to a load which easily doubled (and perhaps tripled) its own weight. The 2,300 miles to Dallas went by without so much as a mishap. The reason: we had a trailer which was designed to handle the task.
Just as I was foolish to expect that little homemade trailer to make such an arduous trip, the Galatian saints were foolish to expect the Law to achieve what it was never intended to do. They had fallen for the false teaching of the Judaizers, which promised to produce righteousness and God’s blessings if they would submit to circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic Law. The difference between the Galatians and me was that they already possessed, if you would, a heavy-duty U-Haul trailer and were eager to trade it in for a homemade single axle replacement. They were willing to set aside what was proven for something promoted as superior. They had been saved and had received the Holy Spirit, who continued to work mightily in their midst, on the basis of faith alone, apart from law-keeping. But now, bewitched by the Judaizers, they were willing to adopt law-keeping as the operating principle of their spiritual lives.
In the first nine verses of Galatians 3, Paul sought to correct this error by reminding the “foolish Galatians” of their Christian experience, as well as that of Abraham, the “father of the faith.” In verses 2-5, Paul’s penetrating questions forced the Galatians to acknowledge that it was by faith alone that the Spirit of God had been given and that He continued to work mightily among them. In verses 6-9, Paul shows that faith was the basis of Abraham’s righteousness as well.
The Judaizers would not have been caught off guard by the mention of Abraham’s faith. They would have quickly responded, “Yes, Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith, but he was also circumcised.” Since circumcision was a sign of one’s acceptance of the Mosaic Covenant, Abraham’s faith led to circumcision, and in time, also led to “law-keeping.” Paul thus found it necessary to address the matter of the Law of Moses in relation to the Abrahamic Covenant. In verses 10-12, Paul shows that the Law cannot commend men to God, but can only condemn them. Paul assures us in verses 13 and 14 that the curse which the Law has pronounced on all men does not nullify the promise of blessing for all men which God made to Abraham because Christ has borne the curse of the Law. In verses 15-18, Paul continues by demonstrating that the Law of Moses cannot nullify or modify the previous promise of God to Abraham because a covenant, once ratified, cannot be changed by a later covenant.
The verses we will consider address the heart of the theological battle between Paul and those who wished to add law to grace. Let us observe carefully and seek to determine how the error of the Judaizers can be identified and avoided in our lives.
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”
The first word of verse 10, “for,” indicates a close link with the preceding verses. We can expect verses 10-14 to explain, in particular, the concluding statement of verse 9: “So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”
Positively, Paul has shown in verses 1-9 that the faith of the Galatians resulted in the reception and ministry of the Spirit, just as faith resulted in the righteous standing of Abraham before God. Negatively speaking, Paul will show in the following verses that while faith is the basis of God’s blessings, the Law cannot accomplish anything except to pronounce a curse upon those who strive to earn righteousness by keeping it. Blessings come by faith as has always been the experience of the righteous beginning with Abraham, while condemnation (a curse) comes from the works of the Law. Verses 10-12 explain why this is true, while verses 13 and 14 show the solution to the problem of the Law in Christ.
Those who are “of the works of the Law” follow the teachings of the Judaizers, putting themselves under obligation to keep the Law of Moses. Paul says that in so doing, such men do not in any way bring about the blessing of God, but instead call a curse upon themselves, the curse of the Law. One cannot be a little bit under the Law just as a woman cannot be a little pregnant. Once you are under the Law, you are wholly obligated to meet its demands without failure.
No doubt the Judaizers sought to minimize the full implications of circumcision. After all, the Gentiles might have reasoned, what would be so bad about undergoing the rite of circumcision, especially if it would win the favor of the Jews and reduce the persecution which they often precipitated (cf. Acts 14:19). Being circumcised however was much like signing induction papers into the Army. Both of these seemingly insignificant acts make one subject to many other demands. When you join the Army, you get up when the sergeant calls you, dress as you are told, and eat what you are given. Joining the Army costs many of your personal freedoms. Similarly, Paul seeks to point out the demanding nature of the Law, which results in a curse: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’” (vs. 10).
There are two broad and inclusive expressions in this verse: “every one” and “all things.”62 Paul wanted the Galatians to realize that when they subject themselves to the Law, they subject themselves to it in its entirety. The Law demands that its subjects keep the whole Law, without exception. Paul fortifies this point by citing Deuteronomy 27:26 where we see that the consequence of failing to keep the whole Law is to be under the curse of God. While the Judaizers may have sought to reinstate the Law in order to produce genuine piety, their course of action went too far, to the point of producing a curse, rather than blessing.
The Old Testament verifies Paul’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 27:26: the Law, because it cannot be wholly kept, can only condemn men. It was by faith that men, like Abraham, were justified before God, not by law-keeping. As proof of his point, Paul refers to Habakkuk 2:4 in verse 11: “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘the righteous man shall live by faith.’”
Some have suggested that the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 in its context does not really square with that given by Paul. The issue, we are told, is not faith as opposed to works, but faith as opposed to arrogance and pride. This is true, so far as the immediate context (2:4a) is concerned, but the broader context is even more significant in my estimation. The prophet Habakkuk has complained to God about Israel’s (Judah’s) iniquity (1:2-4). Specifically, he has protested that the nation’s sin has been evidenced by her neglect of the Law:
Why dost Thou make me see iniquity, And cause me to look on wickedness? Yes, destruction and violence are before me; Strife exists and contention arises. Therefore, the law is ignored And justice is never upheld. For the wicked surround the righteous; Therefore, justice comes out perverted (Habakkuk 1:3-4).
It is the sin of God’s people which troubled Habakkuk, sin which was evidenced by their disregard and disobedience of the law (1:4). God’s response to the prophet’s protest is that He is going to chasten His people with the Chaldeans (1:5-11). This is a horrifying thought to Habakkuk, who objects that the Chaldeans are even more wicked and violent than the people of God. How can a God so righteous use a nation so wicked (1:12-17)? Habakkuk waits for God’s response (2:1) which follows (2:2ff.). God’s answer is that the pride of the Chaldeans is sinful and will eventually be punished (2:4a). In contrast, the righteous will live by his faith (2:4b).
It is rightly observed that “faith” in verse 4 could just as easily be translated “faithfulness” (cf. margin, NASB). It seems to me that God’s answer requires the translation “faith,” in the same sense that Paul understood this verse. How was a man to live righteously in days like those of Habakkuk when God’s people neglected God’s law and when Israel’s prideful enemy would prevail? Habakkuk could not expect God’s blessings on the basis of obedience to the law because Israel was unfaithful. All he, or any righteous Israelite, could do was to trust in God and to live by faith—faith in God’s promises which did not rest upon law-keeping. In accordance with Habakkuk’s realization that Israel was unable to keep the law in his day, and therefore must live by faith, Paul explains the impossibility of keeping the law, requiring men of every age to live by faith.
The next Old Testament quotation, a citation from Leviticus 18:5, is found in verse 12: “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘he who practices them shall live by them.’” (Gal. 3:12). Here, Paul cites this text as proof that the governing principle for law-keepers is works, not faith. If one chooses to live under law, then he must operate within the governing principle of works, while one who chooses grace must live by faith.
Our family’s medical insurance, Kaiser-Prudential, is known as an H.M.O., a Health Maintenance Organization. They actually have two health insurance plans: Plan A and Plan B. Under Plan A, all costs are paid, and all prescription drugs can be obtained for a mere $1 per prescription. Unfortunately, we have Plan B, which means that we must pay $5 per procedure (still a bargain!) and full price for our prescriptions. Recently I picked up a prescription for which the druggist accidentally billed me $1. When I informed him of the mistake, he charged me $22. It was painfully obvious at that point Plan A was better than Plan B.
Following this analogy, Paul’s gospel was Plan A. The Judaizers had concocted another gospel, which we might call Plan B. (To be quite sure, we know that there is only one plan when it comes to the gospel.) In verse 12 Paul has said that when you follow Plan A, you operate by faith, and the results are a matter of grace. If you follow Plan B (the Judaizers’ gospel), you must live by works. You cannot mix the two plans. You must choose either the one or the other, but not some combination of both. Leviticus 18:5 is cited as proof that the Law operates on the basis of works, not faith.
Paul cites Leviticus 18:5 to stress the emphasis on works which is present in the Law. Again, the Law is similar to the Army; it does not matter if you have faith in your sergeant, but only that you obey him. Ideally, obedience to the Law was based upon trust, but the aspect most emphasized was compliance. The same is true today. If I were to ignore a speed limit and be pulled over by a policeman for speeding, he could care less whether or not I believe the law is right. He only cares that I comply fully with the law.
If the Law can only bring a curse upon men, is the Law then not able to condemn all men because of our failure to meet its demands? No matter how good the promises of God to Abraham might have been, doesn’t the curse of the Law override them? If this is the case, we can understand why striving to keep the Law was a temptation to the Galatian Christians. If not, we can see why the Judaizers were wrong. Thankfully, Paul’s answer is that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. There are two reasons why this is true. The first is given in verses 13 and 14; the second is found in verses 15-18.
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Paul views the curse of the Law as universal, including both Jews and Gentiles. This is implied by the term “us” of verse 13 and the “we” of verse 14. As a standard of holiness, the Law condemns all men, showing them to be worthy of the wrath of God. The good news is that God is free to fulfill His promise to Abraham to bless all nations in him because Christ has borne the curse Himself on the cross. The substitutionary work of Christ on the cross is the heart of the gospel. That is why Paul could begin this section in verse 1 by speaking of his gospel as publicly portraying Christ as crucified. He became a curse for us (3:13). This, too, can be seen from the Old Testament Scriptures. In the Book of Deuteronomy it is written, “Cursed is every one who hangs on a tree” (Deut. 21:23).
Specifically, the Deuteronomy text does not refer to death as a result of hanging nor of crucifixion. Rather, it refers to the public proclamation of the cursedness of a man’s sins represented by hanging the dead body up for public display (regardless of how he was killed). It is in this sense that our Lord’s crucifixion providentially fulfilled the requirements of the Law; He became a curse for those who had been legitimately cursed by the Law which they had broken.
There was no reason for the Galatians to place themselves under the Law, for it could not make them righteous. All it could do was to curse them. The curse of the Law, which falls upon all men, has been removed by the Christ of Calvary, who bore the curse and the penalty of the Law. The Law and its curse are thus no longer to be feared, nor can the Law in any way serve as a hindrance to the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham and his “sons” by faith.
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
There are yet other reasons why the Law cannot hinder the fulfillment of the blessings God promised to Abraham, which are given to us in verses 15-18. The first of the reasons given in this argument is found in the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant precedes the Mosaic Covenant, and thus has precedence over it.
Paul’s point is that a covenant, once ratified, cannot be modified or set aside by a later covenant. Since the Abrahamic Covenant preceded the Mosaic Covenant, it has priority over it. Thus, the Mosaic Covenant cannot, as the Judaizers contended, be viewed as prescribing the conditions necessary for the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. As we have already seen, the blessings of the Mosaic Covenant were based upon man’s performance (works), while the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant were based upon God’s promise, received by faith.
Newer is not necessarily better. The Judaizers “marketed” the Mosaic Covenant like Madison Avenue sells soap. Over and over, year after year, the same old soap makes the claim that it is “new” and “improved.” The Mosaic Covenant, in their minds, was newer and an improvement over the Abrahamic Covenant. Paul has shown that while the Abrahamic Covenant promises blessings, the Mosaic Covenant can only produce a curse. The Abrahamic Covenant was not only better, but it was in no way superseded by the Mosaic Covenant. Again, the Judaizers are proven to be wrong.
Paul gives a second reason why the Mosaic Covenant cannot modify or qualify the Abrahamic Covenant: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘and to your seed,’ that is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).
We have all heard of the “Peter principle,” but let me point out the “Paul principle.” It underlies this passage, and it supplies us with yet another reason for the superiority of the Abrahamic Covenant. The “Paul principle” goes something like this: The more people there are in a program, the more likely they are to mess it up.
This principle strikes hard at the very core of the mindset of the Judaizers, who saw themselves as the seed (plural) of Abraham, the means through which the blessing to the nations would be accomplished. No wonder they saw themselves as smugly superior, as reflected in the motto of Galatians 2:15. The only trouble is that they are wrong—dead wrong.
Thankfully, the fulfillment of the blessings God promised through Abraham and his seed (singular) are dependent upon one person, not the entire nation of Israel. Paul tells us that the one person is none other than Christ, Israel’s Messiah, and Abraham’s seed. The Mosaic Covenant can only curse men because it must be kept perfectly, and no mere man has ever been able to accomplish perfect obedience. The blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant are dependent upon God’s promise, achieved through God’s perfect Son, Jesus Christ. Because He not only perfectly obeyed God’s Law but bore its curse, we can be assured of receiving the blessings promised through Abraham by means of promise, not by our performance.
All of this is very convincing, but some scholars say that Paul’s argument is typically “rabbinical,” which in some ways means that it is fabricated or at least forced.63 They remind us that the term “seed” can be used either singularly or collectively, depending on the context. They are absolutely right about this, for the term “seed” is like the term “sheep”—you don’t know whether it refers to one sheep or a whole flock of sheep, until the context makes this clear.
Paul’s argument though is far from forced or fabricated. Once we recognize to which text Paul is referring, the context clearly confirms Paul’s argument. Let us first look at two texts where the term “seed” (rendered “descendants” in the NASB) is clearly plural:
For all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then your descendants can also be numbered (Gen. 13:15-16).
And God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13).
In these passages the term “descendants” is plural, for it is evident that it is Abraham’s offspring which is being spoken of corporately.
Now, look at this passage, where “seed” is used in both the plural (or corporate) sense, and in the singular sense:
“By Myself I have sworn,” declares the Lord, “because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their [lit. his] enemies. And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” (Gen. 22:16-18).
In the first instance of “seed” in verse 17, it is the collective sense which we are intended to understand. The whole point of God’s promise here is that He will multiply Abraham’s seed so that it is as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore or as the stars in the heavens. However the second and third occurrence of the term has the singular sense. Notice that Abraham’s “seed” will possess the gate of his enemies. In this “seed,” all of the nations will be blessed.
The context of this promise confirms that Paul’s interpretation was correct. So far as Abraham was concerned, he had only one son. Abraham had just been commanded to offer up his son, his only son. It took years for Abraham to come to the conclusion that his “seed” was singular—that is, a very specific individual, not just any child. At first Abraham had suggested that God regard Eliezer of Damascus as his heir, but God refused (Gen. 15:1-4). Then, Abraham sought to have God accept Ishmael as the heir, but God again refused, for only Isaac would be his heir (Gen. 17:18-21). By the time we reach Genesis 22, Isaac is viewed as Abraham’s only son. Abraham’s seed, through whom the blessing would be accomplished, would always be singular. Abraham’s seed, to whom the blessings were to be given, was plural. Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament we find the “seed” more and more restricted. The promise was to be fulfilled through Jacob, not Esau (Gen. 25), then through the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10), then through David (2 Sam. 7:12-13).
What a blow this simple singular definition of “seed” was to the theology of the Judaizers. They seemed to believe that the blessings promised to Abraham would become theirs by virtue of their being Abraham’s seed, as well as by their keeping of the Mosaic Covenant. As Abraham’s descendants, they felt that they had a secure and even privileged position under the Law, and that they could thus regulate the Gentiles who sought the same blessings. Paul has completely turned their thinking upside-down. The blessing of salvation and, as Paul describes it, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:14) which God promised to Abraham, He also promised to all nations. This blessing was not brought about through Abraham’s descendants (the Jews), but through one descendant, the Lord Jesus Christ. The arrogance of the Judaizers was thus shown to be false.
In these verses Paul has shown the Galatians what the Law could not do, in spite of the promises and preaching of the Judaizers. The Law could not bring about God’s blessing but only a curse (vv. 10-12). The Law could not nullify the promise of God to Abraham for several reasons. (1) Christ has borne the curse of the Law (vv. 13-14); (2) the Mosaic Covenant cannot change the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant (faith not works) since it was ratified before the Mosaic Covenant was given; and (3) the fulfillment of this promise was always viewed as accomplished through a singular “seed,” the Lord Jesus Christ.
This argument should strike us not only as convincing but also as convicting. Paul was not merely debating the meaning of certain words and the fine points of theology; he was waging war against another gospel, a gospel which could only lead men astray. The same kinds of error which plagued the Galatian churches are still raising havoc in churches today. Let us carefully consider several avenues of application to our own lives.
First, let those of us who are dispensational in our theology be careful not to miss Paul’s point. Somehow dispensationalists are inclined to contrast the grace of the New Testament with the Law of the Old. Such is not Paul’s understanding of the issue. In this passage Paul does not argue from the New Testament, but from the Old. He does not seek to promote grace as something new but to proclaim it as something which is old.
Paul believed in the grace of God from beginning to end, from start to finish. Paul understood the Abrahamic Covenant as an unconditional covenant which was not dependent upon law-keeping but solely dependent upon God’s grace, appropriated by faith. The Mosaic Covenant does not lay down any new conditions which must be met in order for the promised Abrahamic blessings to be earned. The essence of the Judaizers’ theology and practice was based upon their understanding of the Mosaic Covenant as a later, greater, better covenant. The essence of Paul’s theology and practice was based upon his understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant as foundational and fundamental and in no way modified by the Mosaic Covenant.
The “new” Covenant then is not really new at all. It is the fulfillment of the old covenant which God made with Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant was a kind of parenthesis, a temporary, inferior covenant. This raises the question of what contribution the Mosaic Covenant made and is the issue which Paul takes up in verse 19. My point here is that those of us who are dispensationalists had better be more precise in distinguishing what is “new” from what is “old.” The New Covenant is not really new at all but a fulfillment of that covenant made centuries ago with Abraham.
Second, there is great danger done whenever Christians fail to distinguish between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. One teacher who has attracted many followers teaches the concept of “walking in covenant.” He attempts to produce purity and piety by putting Christians back under the Law. When we are saved, we “make covenant” with Christ. According to this teacher, when we sin we “break covenant” with Him (whether or not we thus lose our salvation is not specifically said). Whenever we “walk in covenant” by keeping both the Old Testament Law of Moses and the teachings of Christ and the apostles, we are assured of obtaining the blessings promised in Deuteronomy for keeping the Mosaic Law. Whenever we sin, God turns the demons loose on us (this teacher says, “sick ’em”), and we experience all the curses of Deuteronomy. The spiritual life is a matter of keeping all the commandments of God, from both the Old and New Testaments. The reason given for our inability to experience all the miraculous interventions of God (as seen in the book of Acts) is that we do not “walk in covenant.”
By whatever name you choose to call this, it is merely a revived form of that same heretical teaching of the Judaizers which Paul so zealously opposed. The concept of “walking in covenant” fails entirely to distinguish which covenant it is in which we are to walk. It lumps together all of the covenants but in such a way as to make God’s blessing dependent upon man’s works, rather than upon God’s grace. As such by Paul’s definition it is “another gospel” (cf. Gal. 1:6-10).
Third, a Judaizer’s view of the Christian walk does not honor the Law of Moses; it dishonors it in addition to setting aside the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. If Paul is right in insisting that the Law can only condemn men, then those who elevate the Law as the means of obtaining God’s blessings are guilty of perverting the Law and setting aside its original purposes. According to Paul’s teaching, those who would seek to live under the Law will only find frustration and guilt, for the Law (if rightly understood) cannot and will not pronounce a blessing on us, but only a curse. Only through Christ can the curse of the Law be overcome, and yet, by turning from Christ to the Law, we turn back to the curse of the Law, like a dog returns to its vomit (cf. 2 Pet. 2:22).
There is a very deceptive way in which the Judaizers solve this problem of the curse of the Law: they redefine the Law, making it possible to live up to its standards. They do this by lowering its standards or by providing clever loopholes. No wonder Paul could claim to be blameless as to the righteousness which is in the Law (Phil. 3:5). This is not the Law as God intended it, but the Law as the Judaizers redefined it. This is the point of the Sermon on the Mount. “You have heard it said” refers to what the Judaizers (the Pharisees and scribes) taught about the Law. “But I say to you” is the way God intended for the Law to be understood and practiced. We do not honor God’s Law by altering it, any more than we honor a man’s portrait by penciling in a mustache or modifying it in some other way. Legalism practices and produces the very things it says it is seeking to prevent—disregard for God’s law and unlawful conduct.
Fourth, we need to understand that legalism is rooted in man’s rebellion and unbelief. Paul has very clearly told us that the Law operates on the principle of works, while the promise of God operates on the basis of faith. Whenever we turn from grace to law we have turned from the principle of faith to that of works. I would submit to you that this is the rock-bottom reason when and why legalism is so appealing—when we choose not to believe God in faith.
Why did Abraham strive by his own efforts to produce a son through whom he would be blessed, rather than to trust God? Was it because he did not find God trustworthy? Why do we take matters into our own hands, even when we have God’s promise to the contrary and a prohibition to boot? Is it because we would rather trust in ourself than in God? God’s Word prohibits worry as a sin, and it challenges us to trust in God’s gracious provision for us (cf. Matt. 6:24-34; Phil. 4:6-7, 13, 19). Why do we persist in worrying? Is it because we do not find God worthy of our trust?
This is why legalism is so lethal. At its very core legalism is based upon a distrust of God’s promises; they are exchanged for confidence in our own performance. If we seek to gain God’s favor by our works, we place ourselves under the Law—all of it. In so doing we find ourselves under its curse. The cure for the curse of the Law is the cross of Christ, accepted and believed in by faith alone.
We have come to the bottom line, my friend. In all of life there are really only two choices: God’s promises or our performance; the cure of the cross or the curse of the Law. This is a decision initially made pertaining to our salvation, but it is also one which is persistently made regarding our sanctification. May God give us the grace to choose the cross over the curse.
62 Some have questioned Paul’s use of this passage, pointing out that Paul has added the words “every one” and “all.” Furthermore, they argue that the original intent of this text was to inspire diligent adherance to the Law of Moses, rather than to prove that men should not put themselves under the Law as the Judaizers advocated.
There are several things which should be said in response to the first charge that Paul changed the text. First, Paul’s rendering is largely supported by the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Second, the context of the passage, in Hebrew, English, or Greek, supports the fact that all the Law is to be kept by every person. This verse summarizes and concludes the cursings which are pronounced by the Levites and to which all the people are to respond, “Amen” (cf. Deut. 27:14, 15). In Deuteronomy 28:1, it is again specifically stated that all the commandments which were given that day by Moses were to be diligently obeyed. Paul has cited in accordance with the Septuagint because it clarifies the sense of the verse in its context.
In response to the second charge, we would readily admit that the original intent of the passage was to inspire obedience to the Law of Moses. No one knew this better than Paul. However Paul also knew that the Judaizers went far beyond this intent, promising that obedience to the Law of Moses would make men righteous before God. The Law was given as the means of gaining the specific blessings promised Isreal in the land which they were about to possess (cf. Deut. 30:16). That is a far cry from what the Judaizers promised in return for obedience to the Law. While the intent of the Law was holy, righteous, and good (cf. Rom. 7:12), the effect was that it proved all men to be sinners, worthy of the wrath of God, for no man was ever able to live up to the standard which it set. The Lord made it clear that the Israelites would not keep these commandments and that they would be driven from the land of promise (cf. Deut. 28:15-68; 29:4, 22-28; 30:1-10; 31:16-19). Because the Lord knew His people could not keep this covenant, He made the provision of the sacrifices and offerings for sin which forestalled judgment until the coming of Messiah (cf. Rom. 3:23-26). While the intent of this verse may have been different than Paul’s, the demands contained in this verse explain why Israel did not and could not keep the Law in its entirety, which is the point Paul is seeking to drive home to those who find the teachings of the Judaizers tempting.
63 Barclay, for example, writes, “When we read passages like this and the next one, we have to remember that Paul was a trained Rabbi, an expert in the scholastic methods of the Rabbinic academies. He could, and did, use their methods of argument, which would be completely cogent to a Jew, however difficult it may be for us to understand them. … The Rabbis were very fond of using arguments which depended on the interpretation of single words; they would erect a whole theology on one word. Paul takes one word in the Abraham story and erects an argument upon it.” William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press [revised edition], 1976), pp. 27, 28.
I am inclined to think that too much is made of the rabbinical methods, especially in relationship to Paul’s handling of the Sriptures. I understand Paul to be very aware of such methodology and not only opposed to it personally, but also opposed to the point of instructing Christians to avoid it altogether:
Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:14-15).
In the light of Paul’s warning in wrangling about words, I believe we must assume that Paul makes fine distinctions about the meaning of the word “seed” or “descendant” on the basis of very foundational and fundamental truth, rather than on skimpy and speculative evidence. When Paul does make such distinctions such as we find in Galatians 3:16, we should take them very seriously.
I have always been tempted to try to “make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” especially when I work on cars. In particular, I laboriously attempted to transform a 1966 Rambler station wagon into a car beyond its original design. Some of you will remember the Rambler—the turquoise car with two black doors on the driver’s side (necessitated by an accident). My hopes for this car were actually stimulated when I went to the wrecking yard to replace the damaged doors. There I discovered a beautiful Rambler with many luxuries my car lacked. This car provided the raw materials for some minor modifications—electric windshield wipers, power steering, power disc brakes and an AM-FM radio. To install these added luxuries many modifications were necessary.
However, the greatest challenge was yet to come. After deciding that an automatic transmission was inefficient, I determined to replace it with a standard transmission. I was told that this was an impossible task on an American Motors car, but this only intensified my desire. The modifications to install the manual transmission demanded numerous parts which I located from various sources. My brother sent two boxes of clutch parts from the Northwest. I found an abandoned “T 86” transmission at the junk yard. Numerous other parts were obtained, from various places and automobiles.
Some parts simply were not available and had to be fabricated from something else. At this point I cut up a bed frame to use for a bracket. Believe it or not, the project was a success. Eventually I sold the car. Some months later the buyer of the car called, asking what car the clutch mechanism had come from so that he could tell the mechanic the model. (Actually it was a minor problem, easily fixed, and having no reflection on my design.) I didn’t have the heart to tell him about the Simmons Beauty Rest bed rail, nor was my memory sufficient to recall all cars I had obtained parts from, perhaps fifteen or so.
You might wonder what application this has to the Book of Galatians. The Judaizers had sought to make something out of the Law of Moses which it was never designed to accomplish—to establish men as righteous before God.64 In our passage Paul seeks to expose the error of the Judaizers by reviewing God’s purpose in giving the Law. Neither the Judaizers, the Galatians, nor we should try to make the Law into what it was not designed by God to be. If you will, the Law is like the “sow’s ear” and not a “silk purse”—a means of salvation by self-effort.
Let us briefly review the context of our passage in relation to the third chapter of Galatians. In the first half of chapter 3 Paul has already shown that the Law could not pronounce a blessing upon men, but only a curse. In verses 1-5, he reminds the Galatian saints that it was by the principle of faith that the Holy Spirit was initially given to them at the time of their salvation, and that He continued to work mightily in their lives. In verses 6-9 Paul reminds his readers that Abraham, the “father of their faith,” was justified (declared righteous) on the basis of his belief, rather than on the basis of works. In verses 10-12 Paul concludes that the Law was only able to curse men, not bless them, for absolute, total obedience is required of the Law on every particular. The Law was not based upon belief, but upon perfect behavior, something man is incapable of doing.
While the Law could not bring blessing to men, but only a curse, neither was the Law able to prevent the fulfillment of the blessings God had promised all men through Abraham. There are several reasons for this, which Paul spells out in verses 13-18.
First, the curse which the Law pronounces on all men was borne by our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. God’s promise of blessing through Abraham is still possible, but only through faith (vv. 13-14).
Second, the Abrahamic Covenant preceded the Mosaic Covenant by 430 years, and thereby has preeminence (vv. 15, 17-18). Since God Himself ratified the Abrahamic Covenant, it cannot be modified or set aside by the later covenant which was made with Israel through the mediation of Moses. In this case, newer is not better.
Third, the promise made to Abraham demands fulfillment because it was also made to his seed, Jesus Christ (v. 16). While the blessings promised to Abraham and to his seed are corporate, Paul shows that the Abrahamic Covenant also had a singular promise, one made to the Son through whom all the promises will be fulfilled. Since God is both the promisor and the beneficiary, in Christ, the promise and its blessings are assured to all, unhindered by the Mosaic Covenant with its curse.
Having learned the limitations of the Law from the preceding verses, let us turn our attention to the proper function of the Law, as it was intended by the God who gave it to men through the mediation of angels and Moses.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.
Although it produced a curse on all men, the Mosaic Law was given by God. We may ask then, what purpose did God have in giving the Law? Contrary to what the Judaizers sought to practice and promote, Paul summarizes two purposes of the Law in verses 19 and 20. I will cite the more accurate renderings of the NIV and the Berkeley Version:65
What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The Law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one (Gal. 3:19-20, NIV).
Where, then, does the Law come in? It was superimposed to show up sins in their true light, until the Offspring should come concerning whom the promise was made. It was ordained through angels by means of a go-between. But there is no call for an intermediary in case of one, and God is One (Gal. 3:19-20, Berkeley).
The first purpose of the Law was to dramatically display the depth of man’s sin. It is not enough that something is free—it must also be necessary. At garage sales I have often seen an item for sale at a bargain price, but for which I had no need. Admittedly, for me this is very unusual, but even I occasionally find good buys which I pass up because of no real usefulness. The fact that the gift of salvation in Christ is free is not enough to compel men to accept it. Men must first be convinced of their need of salvation before grace is recognized as a desirable solution. The Law was given to bring men to the point of recognizing their need for grace.
At first reading, it might appear from verse 19 that the Law was given in response to man’s great sin. Paul’s words are translated, “It was added because of transgressions.” While it is grammatically possible to interpret Paul’s words to convey the thought that the Law was given as a result of man’s sin, here it is better to understand the Law as the means which God has employed to make sin evident.66 We know that the Law was given to define sin:
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet” (Rom 7:7).
Occasionally I work on air conditioning systems, and at times the problem is the result of a leak. A refrigerant leak is difficult to find because freon is virtually invisible as a gas. In order to spot a freon leak a red liquid is pumped into the system leaving a very visible indication of the leak. The Law is like that red die—it does not cause sin, but it does reveal it.
The Law not only defines sin; it stimulates sin so that its presence and power cannot be denied or ignored:
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me (Rom. 7:8-11).
We see, then, that the Law defines sin and intensifies it so that it may be recognized as a problem for which only grace is the solution. Sin is something like an injury. The darkness or discoloration of a wound reveals its presence, but the swelling of the injured portion of the body makes the injury even more obvious. The Law magnifies the problem of sin just as swelling draws attention to an injury. As sin increases, the grace of God is enabled to abound.
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20).
The Law, by defining and magnifying the problem of sin, promotes the grace of God, which is the only remedy for sin. The curse produced by the Law does not exclude God’s blessings when it drives men to grace through faith.
We should observe that the Law’s divine purpose is precisely opposite of that maintained by the Judaizers. They sincerely believed that the Law was the remedy for sin, rather than the revealer of sin. When we understand Paul’s words here we see that sin is like the weeds in my lawn. During the winter, when the lawn is dead, the weeds are indistinguishable from the grass. When spring comes, both the weeds and the grass begin to grow. When I put fertilizer on my lawn, it seems that the weeds grow faster than the grass. The end result is that the weeds are much more visible, but have certainly not been eliminated.
To the Judaizers, the Law of Moses was like a weed killer. Apply a little, kill a few weeds; apply a lot, kill them all. Paul’s words here and elsewhere reveal that the Law was really more like a fertilizer. The Law made sin evident; it even caused sin to multiply. This, Paul tells us, is precisely what God designed the Law to do, for it brings men to the place of recognizing the depth of their sinfulness, and their dire need for salvation.
The second purpose of the Law was to provide a temporary provision for man’s sin until the permanent cure came in the person of Christ. The purpose which God gave the Law was provisional and preliminary. Paul writes that the Law was given “until the seed to whom the promise referred had come” (v. 19). The word “until” implies that the Law was not permanent, but provisional.
Further evidence of the provisional function of the Law is found in Paul’s reference to the participation of angels and a mediator in verses 19 and 20. These very things were emphasized by the Judaizers as proof of the superiority of the Law,67 but Paul interpreted them differently. While there was a certain splendor associated with the role of the angels in the giving of the Law (cf. Acts 7:53 and Heb. 2:2), the function of the angels and Moses was mediatorial. As Paul points out in verse 20, a mediator suggests more than one party, since there is no need to mediate between one person. Since God is One (which was the touchstone of orthodoxy to the Jew), His promise required no mediator, as the keeping of it was dependent only upon His faithfulness and power. The Law, on the other hand, required a mediator, for this covenant was made between God and men; since men are sinners, it was destined to fail as a final solution to sin. Thus, its role could only be temporary.
The Law was given as a temporary provision until that which was permanent came. The Law was like scaffolding which is used only during the period of construction and then is removed: The Law was like the temporary walkways and walls in a building being remodeled. We can use the building, though under considerably inferior conditions to those which will prevail when construction is complete.
Those of you who drive a late model General Motors car have an excellent example of a temporary provision in your trunk. A small tire there, provided as a spare, can be used only in emergencies and only for a short time. That tire does not have the traction, the ride, nor the longevity of a “real” tire. It is to be used only when a tire fails, and then only long enough to reach a service station. When the Law revealed the “flat tire” of man’s sin, it also provided men with a temporary solution. The Book of Hebrews describes at length the superiority of Christ to the provisions of the Law, proving both the inferiority and the interim nature of the Law.
The Law of Moses is just like the GM spare tire. It was never intended to replace the promises of God made to all men through Abraham. It was temporary until the promises were fulfilled in Christ. Once Christ had come, the Law was no longer required. To return to the Law, now superseded by the grace of God in Christ, is as foolish as going to a tire dealer and asking him to replace your tires with GM spares on each wheel.
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
The Galatian saints could not have failed to recognize that Paul was strongly stating that the Law of Moses was inferior to the promises God had made to Abraham. The Law could only pronounce a curse, while the promises alone could produce blessing (3:1-12). The Law was inferior to the promises because it could not modify or nullify them, since the promises came first and were ratified by God Himself (3:13-18). The Law was inferior to the promises because the Law was provisional and preparatory, while the promises were permanent (3:19-20). Perhaps the Judaizers might protest that Paul was going too far in what he was saying for it appeared that the Law, as Paul interpreted it, was contrary to God’s promises.
In verse 21 Paul raises this issue to avoid any misunderstanding of what he was saying. His response, “May it never be!” quickly dispels any doubt as to Paul’s position. What a terrible thing to suggest, Paul protests. How could God make one covenant with Abraham, only to oppose it with another, later covenant, made through Moses?
As I understand Paul’s reasoning in verses 21 and 22, he is insisting that the two covenants could only be contrary to each other if they were competitive. If it were possible for law, any law, to produce life, then that law would be competitive with God’s promise, which can and does produce life. Since no law can impart life, there is no competition. Indeed, the Law is complimentary to the promise, for it revealed that nothing but grace can produce life.
Suppose, for example, that two portions of a freeway have been completed, but there is a middle section still under construction. In order to assure that cars travel along a prescribed route of completed roadway, a detour is set up. Along this route are intersections where a driver might become confused. The highway crew eliminates this possibility by setting up barricades with arrows indicating the correct way to go. While these barricades are restrictive, they prevent the driver from going astray. In a like manner the Law serves to direct men to their only hope, not that of self-obtained righteousness through law-works, but through faith in God’s promises to Abraham and his seed.
The Law is no more opposed to grace than an x-ray is opposed to healing. While the x-ray cannot repair a ruptured artery, it can expose it and show that surgery is necessary for recovery. While the Law pronounces a curse on all men, it also points to the cure of which the promises speak.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
In the preceding verses, Paul has focused the reader’s attention on some crucial distinctions: flesh versus Spirit, law versus grace, faith versus works, and the Mosaic Covenant versus the Abrahamic Covenant. These distinctions were not adequately understood or applied by the Judaizers. In verses 23-29 Paul turns to the distinctions which the Jews must make, as well as those which, in the light of the cross of Christ, must no longer be made.
Verses 23-25 deal with the Jewish people, including the Apostle Paul. The pronoun “we” draws our attention to the Jewish application of Paul’s words. The critical terms are “before” (v. 23) and “now” (v. 25). While the Jews were once kept in custody under the Law (v. 23), they are no longer under the Law as a tutor (v. 25). The Law which the Judaizers sought to exalt, Paul said was abolished. It had performed its function prior to the coming of Christ. The Law’s task of restraining men until Christ and leading them to Christ has been accomplished. Therefore, the observance of the Law, as previously required of Old Testament saints, is now only an anachronism, no longer binding on the New Testament believer. Strongly implied in these verses is the foolishness of trying to “turn back the clock” to once again live under the restrictions of the Law.
Verses 26-29 focus on a different group of people, the Gentiles. This is signaled by the change in pronouns from “we” in verses 23-25 to “you” in a verses 26-29. I believe that the Jewish Christians are included in the “you” of the last verses, and they are not at all to be seen separately from the group of all true believers.
Faith in Christ constitutes all believers, Jewish or Gentile, as sons of God (vv. 26, 29). Union with the Son of God makes any man a son of God. This is symbolically proclaimed by the rite of baptism. While circumcision was once the initiatory rite, binding one to the Mosaic Covenant, baptism is the initiatory rite of the Christian. Spirit baptism unites us with Christ, and water baptism symbolizes this union. After the coming of Christ, circumcision is no longer viewed as a significant spiritual act, being superseded by baptism. Paul’s emphasis on baptism was a thorn in the side of the Judaizers, but it accurately reflects the change from living under one covenant to another.
On the basis of Paul’s words in verses 23-25, the Jewish Christians not only have no need to return to the Law; they must not do so. Let me attempt to illustrate Paul’s point with a modern miracle of medicine—the kidney machine. A few years ago, one of the members in our body was diagnosed as having lost virtually all kidney function. How grateful she is to be able to use a kidney machine, which prolonged her life when death would otherwise have been inevitable. The machine was very restricting, and instructions for using it must be followed meticulously, or she will die. Her normal activities are now governed by the hours which she must spend on the machine; nevertheless, her life is marvelously prolonged.
Let’s suppose that the doctor called this lady, told her that a kidney doner had been located, and a transplant was scheduled for the next morning. Several weeks after successful surgery the doctors informed her that her body had accepted the kidney and that she would never again need to use the machine. She has been cured. How ludicrous it would be for her to return, once more, to the kidney machine. Now if she returned to the machine her kidney would stop functioning, for it would be competing with the machine. What was once necessary, but confining and restrictive, would no longer be required (or allowed), due to the reception of a kidney.
Israel’s experience is similar. Because of sin, the Law was given, temporarily putting off the penalty of death. With the Law (and previously in the promise made to Abraham) came the promise of a full and permanent solution to sin—the Messiah. After Christ’s coming, the Law’s purpose as a short-term remedy has been realized, and a return to the Law would be foolish and fatal.
Paul’s words in verses 23-25 deal a decisive blow to the teaching of the Judaizers in the Galatian churches. The Law which once distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles is no longer binding, even on the Jews. It is antiquated. The Gentile Galatians had been persuaded by the Judaizers that to be truly spiritual they must place themselves under the Law. Paul counters this by showing that if living under the Law is no longer necessary for the Jews, surely it is not required of the Gentiles either. Just as it would have been needless for Charlotte to return to her kidney machine, it would have been tragic for her to urge all of her friends to use the machine.
Suppose, for example, that there was a law in America in the 18th century requiring every farmer to keep a six month’s supply of hay for his horse. Now, years later, most of us do not own horses, nor do we need a reserve of hay. How foolish it would be for us to require all immigrants to buy and keep a horse, along with a six month’s supply of hay. What is no longer necessary for us, should also be no longer required of others. The principle underlying Paul’s words might be summarized by “One man’s trash should not become another man’s treasure.” The Judaizers didn’t understand this principle, so Paul had to point out the change that had occurred for the Jews, and then the implications for Gentiles.
Verse 28 is the climax of this section. It demands that the very distinctions which the Judaizers and others emphasized must be set aside as inconsistent with the equality which all men have in their standing before God in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
Verse 28 spells out the implications of being in Christ. The distinctions which men make, based upon ethnic origin, gender, and cultural, social or economic status, do not in any way determine one’s standing in Christ. Since this is true, then there is no reason to compel Gentiles to become Jews. Jewishness is not superior. There is no basis for a woman to feel inferior as a person, in Christ. There is no great tragedy involved if one must remain a slave. This is why Paul is able to encourage the Corinthian saints not to become preoccupied with changing their status:
Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called (1 Cor. 7:17-24).
So far as our standing before God is concerned, all human distinctions are done away with in Christ. This frees the Christian from seeking a superior spiritual status by striving to change his social, economic, ethnic, or sexual status. Why do women strive and demand to be like men? I would suggest that it is because they feel that having man-like status makes them a more significant person. Paul taught just the opposite. In Christ, human distinctions of man’s worth are abolished, thus giving all Christians equality before God.
There is nothing wrong with improving one’s status in life as long as the Christian understands that this has nothing to do with his worth in God’s eyes. The effort to improve one’s spiritual status is senseless, since all are equal in Christ. While a woman should take advantage of liberties and privileges, just as a slave should take advantage of the opportunity to be free, they should not be compelled. There is not the compulsion that characterizes unbelievers, for the one who is in Christ is secure. Human distinctions pale in light of the fact that God does not distinguish the value of persons in Christ.
There are still distinctions on the basis of factors such as sex and status in life, both in society at large and in the church. Women are prohibited from public speaking and leadership in the church (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). Wives are to be subject to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24), slaves to their masters (Eph. 6:5-8), and children to their parents (Eph. 6:1-3). The important thing to realize is that these distinctions have nothing to do with one’s worth to God or his spiritual significance.
In their desperate attempt to prove that the Bible teaches women ought to have equal standing in society with men, a subject which Paul does not address in this passage, the women’s liberation movement has entirely missed the point of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28. Those who so quickly condemn Paul for his sexist statements elsewhere praise his wisdom and insight here. They see this passage in light of social implications, when Paul is actually speaking of its spiritual implications. Those women who see themselves as accepted in Christ, with equal standing with every other Christian in the blood of Christ, do not have the compulsive urgency to earn their equality in a man’s world by doing what men do. This is not to say that society (and even Christianity) hasn’t been wrong in the treatment of women. Rather this text is not the place to prove a point on women’s rights.
The subject Paul addresses in this text is the issue of distinctions. The Judaizers were failing to make the crucial distinctions between the Mosaic Covenant and the Abrahamic, between works and promise, law and grace. They were also making distinctions which no longer were legitimate, in particular, those between Jews and Gentiles. Let us consider this matter of distinctions, for it is also a relevant issue for Christians today.
First, let us consider those distinctions which Christians must make. The Galatians had fallen into error because they had followed teaching which did not make the proper distinction between the covenants of the Old Testament. Paul saw a world of difference between the promise which God unconditionally gave to Abraham, and the provision of the Law which was conditioned by Israel’s obedience. The Judaizers failed to understand the temporary and secondary role of the Law, in contrast to the permanent and primary role of the promise. They also failed to perceive that the promises were to be fulfilled through one “seed” of Abraham, rather than through the nation as a whole. It was their failure to observe these fundamental distinctions which led to the legalism and law-works orientation of Judaism.
Quite frankly, 20th century Christians are unaware of proper distinctions, as well. We have failed to distinguish between truth and error, true spirituality from that which appears pious, enduring principles and precepts from those which are passing. Let me take a few moments to deal with some critical distinctions which we must understand today.
(1) Christians must learn the difference between what is good and what is best. In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul argues for the priority of love over knowledge. Things which are partial are inferior to those which are perfect, and things which are provisional are inferior to those which are permanent. Such distinctions are always crucial to Christianity.
(2) Christians must learn to distinguish between what is part of a bygone era and that which is binding on saints today. There is a dire need for Christians to recognize that everything that is “biblical” is not always applicable to our day. To be specific, the Law of Moses is biblical, in that it is found in the Bible. This was, no doubt, one of the principle arguments of the Judaizers when seeking to convince the Gentiles of their need to be under the Law. Paul corrected this error by showing the preferability of grace over Law (3:1-12), the priority of the Abrahamic Covenant over the Mosaic (3:15-18), and the permanence of grace over the provisional nature of law (3:19ff.).
Dispensationalism rightly seeks to distinguish between the unconditional covenant of God with Abraham and the conditional covenant of God with Israel, mediated through Moses. Yet some evangelical Christians who are dispensationalists have failed to apply the same principles to other areas of their lives. For example, some charismatic Christians argue for the necessity of the spectacular spiritual gifts. They reason that since the gifts of tongues, miracles, and healings are found in the Book of Acts, they must also be present today. Since we have the same God, who has the same power, and who does not change, why shouldn’t these same miracles occur as they did then?
I must be perfectly honest with you and begin by saying that most of the anti-charismatic arguments are weak and do not do justice to the Scriptures. I am willing to go so far as to say that since God is sovereign in the giving of gifts, He is free to give any gift He chooses, at any time. However, this is a far cry from the charismatic command that God must do so, based solely on the fact that He has done so in the past. In the first place, we dare not overlook at least the possibility that the miraculous phenomenon of the Book of Acts was provisional and preparatory, just as the Law was. Having once existed and having once served God’s purposes does not guarantee that what was in the past must also be so in the present.
Unfortunately, those who strongly hold to an anti-charismatic theology often wrongly apply their own principles. While some things may be provisional and temporary, they begin to include anything in this category which does not fit their preferences. Thus, the silence of women in the church meeting is relegated to a mere cultural command, which was applicable to the churches of the New Testament but not for us. Here is a good principle (of distinguishing what is biblical and binding from what is biblical and not binding) taken to the extreme. Let us be very careful to discern the permanent from the provisional on the basis of biblical evidence, and not on preference. Paul found the distinctions between law and grace which he underscored in Galatians 3 and 4 in the Old Testament itself. Let us seek to be as biblical.
(3) Christians must learn to distinguish between those things which are fundamental from those which are fine points. In Matthew 23, our Lord accused the scribes and Pharisees of “straining gnats and swallowing camels” (23:24). They failed to discriminate what was fundamental from what was incidental. The same kind of error is commonly made by Christians. To Peter, ceasing to eat with the Gentiles and eating with the Jews, was a small thing—incidental. To Paul, it was fundamental, for it was a departure, indeed a denial, of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The “fundamentalist controversy” of recent history was the result of certain men drawing (rightly, I believe) a line between what differences could be tolerated within Christianity and those which must be regarded as un-Christian. We need to determine, accurately, that for which we will be willing to “go to the wall.”
(4) Christians must learn to distinguish between principles and particulars. Closely related, but not identical with the previous point is the need to distinguish between particulars and principles. The need for such distinctions is demonstrated in the Sermon on the Mount, where our Lord contrasts the emphasis on particulars of the scribes and Pharisees with the biblical emphasis on principle. For example, the scribes and Pharisees had certain particulars which were the basis for granting a divorce, but Jesus sought to emphasize the principle of permanence. He thought in terms of the rule, while they thought in terms of the exceptions. He thought in terms of truth; they in terms of technicality. We reveal our failure in this area when we emphasize formulas for successful Christian living instead of principles. Let us be people who discern particulars from principles and who act on principle.
Second, having dealt with necessary distinctions, let us consider differences which should be dead issues. Galatians 3:28 summarizes what Paul is trying to say about erroneous distinctions. In Christ, one’s spiritual standing should not be estimated on the basis of distinctions in race, socio-economic status, or sex. Let us consider what factors made these distinctions wrong and how we should view differences today.
Differences are the raw materials from which prejudices are fabricated. Differences provide men with a basis for estimating the superiority of one thing over another. In some instances, judgments about the superiority of one thing over another are good and proper, but in others they are illicit. In Galatians 3:28, Paul is saying that differences in race, socio-economic status, and sex are not valid indicators of one’s spiritual standing before God. There is only one way in which men can be saved—by the blood of Christ— thus, all who are in Christ are equal before God. All are not identical, obviously, but all are equal.
The Judaizers were motivated by pride and self-seeking, as we shall see later in this epistle. One can understand how they sought to establish themselves by promoting their Jewishness as somehow superior to Gentileness. It is no wonder that the Gentile Galatians sought to put themselves under the Law, once it was granted that being under the Law was a superior spiritual status. The fundamental problem with the Judaizers was that there are no spiritual distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave or free, rich or poor, male or female. Such distinctions are fabricated.
Let us pause to ponder this matter of differences and put them in proper perspective. Differences are by divine design, a reflection of God’s creativity and freedom. One visit to the zoo will impress one with the creativity of God which was reflected in His creation of our world. The Ephesian and 1 Corinthian epistles focus our attention on the diversity which God has demonstrated in His body, the church. There is diversity in the racial composition of the church (Eph. 2:11-22), just as there is diversity in the spiritual gifts, ministries, and manifestations (success or effects) of these enablements (1 Cor. 12:4-6). The purpose of these differences is to manifest unity in diversity and to create inter-dependence among believers. Differences are by divine design, not to make distinctions which elevate some, but to cause all to value and to depend upon others (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12-31).
In spite of what the Scriptures teach us about dealing with differences in the body of Christ, we are more like the Judaizers than we would like to believe. We emphasize the differences between men. We readily distinguish between the well-to-do executive (after all, who else would we put on the church board?) and the blue collar worker. We highly esteem the leader, but disdain a mere follower. We praise and take pride in those who eloquently speak in public (e.g. the gift of teaching), but we think little of the service which is done in private (e.g. the gift of helps).
Do you really wonder why we, like the carnal Corinthians, clamor for certain gifts, certain ministries, certain positions? It is because we have wrongly distinguished some as spiritually superior to others. When we make such distinctions, we create an overabundance of some functions, and a deficit of others. Worst of all, we deny the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us learn to discern what to distinguish, and what distinctions need to be eliminated for the sake of the gospel.
64 The error of the Judaizers would be better illustrated by my analogy if I had tried to make my Rambler into an airplane. Just as my Rambler was never intended to be a flying machine, so the Law was never designed to be a means for salvation, but a tool for condemnation.
65 For some unwarranted and unexplained reason, the translators of the NASB have chosen to ignore the word order of the original text, placing the phrase which speaks of the angels and a mediator before that which speaks of the coming of the seed, to whom the promise had been made. For this reason, I have cited in the text of my message the better renderings of the NIV and the Berkeley Version.
66 Ridderbos writes, “What now does the because of mean in this statement? In the Greek these words can point to cause as well as purpose. If it were the former, we should have to exegete: because the transgressions were many, the law was given — that is, to restrain them. From Rom. 4:15 and 5:20 it becomes apparent, however, that Paul means something else: the law was given, so to speak, to call forth the transgressions, and make them manifest. This is to say more than that by means of the law sin should be acknowledged as transgression in its proper and terrible character: it is to say also that by means of the law sin should come out into the open and multiply itself. The law makes guilt and evil greater (Rom. 5:20).” Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), pp. 137-138.
67 The Judaizers seem to have made much of the presence of angels at the giving of the Law. The Scriptures imply that too much significance was placed on the angels, which even caused some to worship them (cf. Col. 2:18). This is apparently the background for Hebrews 1 and 2 in which the superiority of Christ to the angels is stressed.
This week our daughter Beth graduates from high school, an event which marks the conclusion of a long and wearying process of education, both for our daughter and for us as parents. Friday evening we will attend what has been traditionally called “commencement exercises.” The term “commencement” focuses on the fact of beginning, not of conclusion, and indicates that a whole new world lays ahead for the high school graduate. Beth will be going away to college. This means a greater amount of freedom for her, accompanied by greater responsibility. She will no longer be prompted by her parents to get her school work done or to clean up her room. In many ways graduation is the realization of a long-awaited event, to be followed by greater challenges and opportunities.
There are other emotions associated with graduation, however. Graduation is not just a beginning, but an end, a point of termination. Beth’s graduation is the conclusion of twelve long years of required education, of term papers, tests, and such things as science fair projects. It also means leaving behind certain relationships. While there will be occasional class reunions, the reality is that she will never again see some of her classmates this side of heaven (and some, not at all, for a painfully obvious reason). Graduation also marks the end of the carefree life for which parents have assumed most of the responsibilities. Now Beth and others in her class will begin to think more carefully about budgeting and earning sufficient income to meet expenses.
Now, but much more in days to come, Beth will nostalgically look back upon her high school days and yearn to return to them. She, like most of us, will forget about the hardships and the restrictions and remember the carefree joy of living life without assuming most of its responsibilities. This is an experience common to man. Novels and movies all play upon the theme of turning back the clock, returning to those golden days of the past. In the Old Testament, we find the Israelites, who had yearned for freedom from their cruel taskmasters, soon seeking to return to Egypt when faced with the difficulties of life.
The Judaizers of Paul’s day had also wished to return to the past and to take the Gentile Galatian saints with them. They painted a glorious picture of life as it had once been under the Old Testament economy of the Law. While they were willing to concede that faith in Christ was necessary for salvation, for them faith alone was inadequate, and thus the Law must be added as well (cf. Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 3:1-5).
The “different gospel” (cf. Gal. 1:6-10) which the Judaizers preached led to an attack on the apostleship of Paul who had first proclaimed Christ crucified to these Galatians, resulting in their salvation (cf. 3:1-5). Paul defended his gospel and his apostleship in the first two chapters of Galatians. His salvation and growth as a Christian were largely independent of men, and particularly of the renowned apostles in Jerusalem (1:13-24). Nevertheless, they wholeheartedly accepted Paul, his message and his ministry, as signified by their giving him the “right hand of fellowship” (2:9) and refusing to give ground to the Judaizers, who insisted that Titus be circumcised (2:3-4). When Peter acted inconsistently with the gospel, Paul rebuked him publicly (2:11-21). Paul could hardly be accused of being a man-pleaser whose gospel catered to the whims of men (cf. 1:10-11).
In Galatians 3 Paul began to defend his gospel in its particulars. It was Paul’s gospel of salvation by faith alone, apart from law-keeping, which resulted in the Galatians’ reception of the Holy Spirit, along with His on-going miraculous manifestations of power (3:1-5). Abraham, too, the “father of the faith,” was justified by believing God’s promises, and thus all men become the seed of Abraham by believing in His promises (3:6-9). The Law cannot produce the blessings which God promised Abraham, but only cursing, for men cannot keep every law consistently (3:10-12). This curse on all men does not hinder the fulfillment of God’s promises, for Christ Himself has borne the curse of the Law by being nailed to the cross (3:13-14). Furthermore, the Abrahamic Covenant preceded the Mosaic Covenant, thus taking precedence, for a later covenant cannot modify or abrogate a covenant which has been previously ratified (3:15,17). Since the promise was made to and accomplished though a specific person, Christ, it was certainly accomplished because He is the Son of God (3:16).
The Law did have its purpose in the fulfilling of God’s promises to Abraham. The Law made the problem of sin painfully obvious. The Law defined sin and actually resulted in multiplying sin to where it could not be denied. The purpose of the Law, however, was provisional and was never intended to be permanent (3:19). The Law was not in opposition to the promises of God, for this economy pointed men to the promises and proved every means of obtaining them, other than faith, to be futile. The Law did not oppose faith, but prepared for it and promoted it as the only means to receiving God’s promised blessings through Abraham (3:22-24). Since the Law was provisional and preparatory, it was set aside after the coming of Christ, and it thus ceased to make the old distinctions between Jew and Gentile, which was the basis for the pride and zeal of the Judaizers.
1 Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. 3 So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. 4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
In chapter 3 Paul has established, on biblical and theological grounds, the superiority of grace over law, of receiving the blessings of God through faith as opposed to the curse which comes through the works of the Law. He now seeks to illustrate and apply this truth by turning to a well-known practice in the ancient world, that of an heir coming of age, so as to enjoy all that he has legally possessed, but which has been beyond his personal control.68
Here Paul refers to a Roman legal process, well known to himself and his readers.69 According to Roman law, the heir was under the control of a tutor until the age of 14. This tutor was named by the father and placed in his will. From the age of 14 until the heir was 25, he was under a curator, at least sometimes named by the father. The tutor and the curator were not necessarily intended to be synonymous with Paul’s “guardians” and “managers” (4:2). It may be that the “guardian” was in charge of the child, while the “manager” was in control of the assets of the child.70 When the heir reached the age of 25 (or the age stipulated by the father), he then entered into the full privileges of his possession. Until that time, the heir was in the frustrating predicament of legally owning his father’s inheritance without actually enjoying its possession.
Our legal system places an estate in the hands of a trustee until the child reaches legal age, with a certain amount of funds provided during childhood as established by the father. We can hardly imagine the confinement of the “heir” of Paul’s day who had someone to tell him what to do and not to do and another to spend his money for him. The closest we might come to this is with the Federal Government. The IRS takes a certain amount of money from us as a reserve fund against projected taxes, even when we may get much or all of it back. Until the government decides to give us our money, it is theirs to control.
The restrictions on the heir of ancient times were far greater. Can you imagine what it must have been like for a young man to be, as it were, a millionaire, and yet not be able to do as he wanted with this money? For all intents and purposes, the heir was no different from the slave, for he received only what the “guardians” and “managers” determined to give him (4:1).
In verses 3-5, Paul makes the analogy to the status of the Jews who lived under the Law. The “heir” under Roman law had legal ownership of his father’s wealth; he did not actually possess it or enjoy it. So too the Jews had the promises of God to Abraham, yet they were not yet realized or enjoyed. Just as the Roman “heir” was under the dictates of the appointed “tutor” and “curator,” the Israelite was under the Law, with all of its restrictions and mediators. The time for both preparatory periods to end was established by the father. For the “heir,” it was the age determined by the Roman law or specified by the father.71 For the believer, the Law’s tutelage ended at the appointed time when the Father determined for the Son to be sent to the earth to redeem fallen man.
The expression “elemental things of the world” in verse 3 has been the source of considerable discussion. Bruce comments:
“The word stoicheia means primarily things placed side by side in a row; it is used of the letters of the alphabet, the ABCs, and then, because the learning of the ABCs is the first lesson in a literary education, it comes to mean ‘rudiments,’ ‘first principles’ (as in Heb. 5:12).”72
I do not see the term as it is used here to have a highly technical meaning as some have suggested. Paul is trying to show the benefits of maturity, as opposed to the restrictions of immaturity. Those principles under which a child is restrained and governed are appropriately labeled “elementary.” These “elementary principles,” these ABCs, have been put aside, thankfully, and replaced by something far better.
Paul seems to speak specifically here of the Jews as implied by the term “we” in verse 3, which is paralleled in verse 5 by “those under the Law.”73 Christ was sent to the earth as one “born of a woman” (4:4). This was necessary to fulfill the promise of Genesis 3:15, and also was a necessary part of the incarnation, so that Christ could die for man as man. In addition, Christ was born “under the Law” (4:4) so that He was able to bear the curse of the Law to enable men to receive the blessings which God promised to Abraham’s offspring (2:13-14). The “adoption as sons” (4:5) is that enjoyment of the promises of God to Abraham, and the passing from the restrictions and confinement of the Law to the fullness and freedom of grace.74
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. 8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
Paul has previously taught that sonship has not only come to the Jews but also to the Gentiles. While the particulars are not identical, the process of the Gentiles coming to faith is similar to that of the Jews, and thus similar to the analogy of the “heir” under Roman law which Paul has given in verses 1 and 2. In verses 6-11 Paul compares the sonship of the Gentiles to that of the Jews, stressing the foolishness of seeking to place themselves under the Law as the Judaizers urged.
In verse 6 Paul broadens his reference to the benefits of sonship which belong to the Gentile Galatian Christians. The “you” (4:6) refers specifically to the Galatians just as the “we” (4:3,5) referred to the Jews.75 The evidence of sonship is the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which causes us to respond and relate to God as Father. This ministry of the Spirit was not present under the Law in the Old Testament.
Since the Galatian Christians possessed the Holy Spirit (cf. 3:1-5), the spirit of adoption (4:6; Rom. 8:15-17), they were just as certain of their sonship as the Jewish saints. Since they were sons, they could no longer be slaves. Better still, they were also “heirs” of the promises to Abraham (4:7).
While the Jews were no better than slaves under the economy of the Law (4:1), the Gentiles were truly slaves, in bondage to elementary principles. These elementary principles were somehow related to the false idol worship of “no gods” (4:8; cf. 1 Cor. 12:2; Eph. 2:1-3). How foolish it would be for them to turn back to the “elemental things,” which Paul here calls “weak” and “worthless” (4:9).
The relationship between the “elemental things” of verse 9 and those of verse 3 is perplexing to biblical scholars. Yet, while the particulars are not certain, the point is clear. Both the Jews and the Gentiles have in the past lived under “elemental things.” It would be foolish for either Jews or Gentiles to leave the better things of Christ to return to the “elemental things” of their past. I believe that Paul is seeking to convince the Galatians that since it would be foolish for a Jew to return to the “elemental things” of the Law, it would be even more foolish for a Gentile to seek to be under the Law. Both, in Christ, have come to possess something far better—forgiveness and freedom, obtained by grace through faith, and not by law-works. For the Gentile to seek the “elemental things” of the Jew is as foolish as returning to the “elemental things” of their pagan, idolatrous past.
When we lived in the Northwest, I hauled our trash to the county dump in a trailer. Those of you who know me well would not be surprised to hear that I often returned with a trailer full of garbage from that dump—to me, a discarded washing machine tub was not garbage, but a potential planter! In our affluent society, one man’s trash is often another man’s treasure. This is not true, however, when considering elemental things. According to Paul, Jewish trash should not become a Gentile’s treasure, which is precisely what the Judaizers were promoting.
Those things to which the Galatians returned were not the “elementary things” of their own past, but rather those of the Jewish past. In verse 10 Paul cites the celebration of certain holy days, months, seasons, and years as evidence of their turning back to the inferior things of the past. We see a very similar description in the second chapter of Colossians. One characteristic of the Law was that it distinguished nearly everything. It distinguished what was sacred from what was secular, what was holy from what was defiled, what was clean from what was unclean. In the mind of the Judaizer, it separated the Jew from the Gentile in such a way as to make the Jew superior to the Gentile. In the final analysis, the Judaizer saw the Law as superior to grace and the Mosaic Covenant as better than the cross of Christ. To Paul, all these arbitrary distinctions were overshadowed by one great distinction, the “elementary things” of the past and the “better things” accomplished through Christ. Paul’s work was in vain (4:11) if the Galatians failed to realize the superiority of Christ over the Law.
Before suggesting some applications of our text, let me underscore several observations about those truths which Paul would have intended his reader to understand from verses 1-11.
First, under the Law the distinction between Jews and Gentiles was not as great as the Judaizers taught. Paul has already indicated in chapter 3 (v. 28) that in Christ the distinctions which men make in order to gain superiority were all set aside. All men (and women), whatever their sex, race, or socio-economic status, are considered equal in God’s eyes through the blood of the cross. Paul continues in chapter 4 to show that even under the Law the Jews were hardly superior to the Gentiles. The word “differ” in verse 1 includes the idea of superiority,76 thus reminding the reader that the Jew was not truly superior to the Gentile under the Law, since the Jews, like the Gentiles, were in bondage to those things which could be called “elemental.” While the Judaizers considered themselves (as Jews) to be custodians of God’s gifts and promises, the Old Testament Jew was himself in bondage “under guardians and managers” (v. 2). The superiority complex of the Judaizers was unfounded.
Second, far from producing a greater spiritual maturity, being under the Law was proof of the opposite—immaturity. The theology of the Judaizer was that grace alone was not sufficient to save (cf. Acts 15:1) nor to sanctify (Gal. 3:3). Their solution was to add law to grace. In other words, the Law was necessary to produce godliness and maturity in the life of the Christian, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul nullifies this theology by associating the Law with childhood and immaturity. He describes the period during which Israel was under the Law as the time when they were children (Gal. 4:3) It is necessary to restrict and confine a child because children are too immature to make wise decisions. We do not let our children make important decisions, because they are neither wise nor mature enough to do so. Thus, by associating the Law with the immaturity of a child, which requires tutors, custodians, and stewards, Paul indicates that the need for rigid rules and regulations is the mark of immaturity. How then do the Judaizers dare to promise a higher level of spirituality through a return to the Law?
The word “elemental” (I prefer the term “elementary”) is by no means a compliment. This is illustrated by a principle of education which I am told is employed in the armed forces. This principle is known in its abbreviated form as “KISS,” which stands for, “Keep it simple, stupid.” There is only one reason to keep something simple, and that is because those being taught are stupid. Paul is reminding the Galatians of a similar principle related to the Law, which is by no means complimentary to those who would look at the Law as placing them on a higher plane of spirituality.
Third, Paul has given further proof that the Law which God gave through Moses was not contrary to God’s promises made to Abraham. In verse 21 of chapter 3 Paul asked the question, “Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God?” The analogy of the heir under Roman law gives further proof that this was not the case. As a child, the heir was still the owner of his father’s goods, but there was a period of restriction and regulation necessary before all of the privileges and responsibilities were to be given over to the child. Restriction was a necessary part of the program which culminated in full sonship. So, too, the restrictions of the Law were necessary during Israel’s immaturity, until full freedom was granted.
Fourth, Paul has once again underscored the foolishness of seeking to turn back the clock and surrender the benefits of freedom under grace for the regulations and restrictions of bondage under Law. Why would an heir, once he has gained full possession of his father’s goods, ever wish to return to his previous guardianship? Why would one who has come to full sonship through faith in Christ ever wish to return to the confinement of the Law? Such a thought was shown to be foolish, even in terms of such a secular matter as legal sonship under Roman law.
Returning to the dictates of the Law is similar to convincing Picasso to abandon the freedom of his own style of painting and thereafter paint “by numbers.” I should add that the opposite extreme is absolute libertinism, the absence of any rules, which leads to randomly dripping paint or throwing it at the painting—or having a dog walk through paint and then onto a canvas.
The truths which Paul has exhorted the Galatians to embrace are relevant to men and women of our century as well. Allow me to suggest some of the ways this passage may apply to you and me.
First, we who are Christians must be sensitive to the fact that we have a predisposition to return to the past. Most of us are known as political and theological conservatives. I believe, for example, that our country has departed from many of its founding principles and practices, and I would desire to see us return to them, as a nation. Likewise, there are many times when men must return to their spiritual heritage.
The most important change a person will ever experience is that of conversion. Paul has described his dramatic conversion from the religious fervor of Judaism to personal faith in Christ. He turned from a confidence in his law-works, a self-made righteousness, to faith in the saving work of Christ (cf. 1:11-17; cf. also Phil. 3: 1-16). The Bible likens a man in his lost state to a sheep which has wandered away from its shepherd (Isa. 53:6). Peter thus describes conversion: “For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25).
My friend, if you have not yet acknowledged your sin and the fact that you have strayed from God, I urge you now to turn to the One who can save you—Jesus Christ.
It is little wonder that Christians are so frequently called sheep, for we too are prone to stray. As the hymn writer says, “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it.” The prophets of old called for repentance, a turning back to faith in God and obedience to His commandments. Our Lord told Peter that he would turn around after his denial: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32, emphasis mine).
If you have wandered away from a vital relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, I must urge you with full assurance that the proper course of action for you is to return to your faith and to walk with Him.
It is necessary to say also that there is a danger in trying to turn back the clock or attempting to relive the old days in a way that is unhealthy and ungodly. It is our desire as Elders of Community Bible Chapel to have a truly New Testament church. This does not mean, however, that we seek to live a kind of “instant replay” of all that has taken place. This is a great part of the error of those who demand that all of the tongues, the healings, and the miracles must be experienced today. While God is sovereign in the bestowal of His gifts and power, we can never demand these things simply because they have happened in the past. A New Testament church, in our opinion, is one which operates on the basis of New Testament principles and which depends upon New Testament power (the power of the Holy Spirit). The results are left to God, who sovereignly bestows spiritual gifts, who sovereignly directs and determines ministries, and who sovereignly blesses (1 Cor. 12:4-6).
In his excellent book entitled The Church Unleashed, Frank Tillipaugh challenges his reader to compare the brief and narrow list of ministries which describe the vision and service of the evangelical church today with the diverse and prolific ministries of the parachurch organizations. Our conservatism, our desire to preserve or return to the past, has often paralyzed our ability to minister with any level of freedom and flexibility. The classic defense of this mentality of putting the past in cement is “We’ve always done it that way before.” Let us beware of our tendency to remain static or, worse yet, to move backwards in areas of ministry.
If Christians are to grow and to progress in the faith, then while the fundamentals will never change (and will sometimes need to be returned to), much of our past should not be repeated, for it will be inferior. Occasionally I will have a need to return to one of my old sermons, either in print or on tape. I can tell you that I wish there were some way to get some of my messages out of circulation. At least I can say that I hope that if I preached that same text today I would do a better job. In this sense, I don’t want to go back to my old way of preaching. If maturity comes over a period of time, there must be those things to which we should avoid returning. The bottom line is this: we must always seek to return to those things which are fundamental, but beware of returning to those things which Paul has called “elemental.”
Second, the Christian must always be eager to learn the lessons of the past, without attempting to relive the events of the past. The Scriptures abound with references to the past. History is given to us so that we might learn valuable lessons from those who have walked before us, yet without the painful experience of repeating the errors of others. We must therefore learn to differentiate between the lessons which have been learned, the principles which have been taught or illustrated, and the events which have been experienced. Those who wish to relive the past are seeking to avoid the painful realities of the present.
Third, we must learn to distinguish between “nostalgia,” a romanticized recollection of the past, and history, a realistic report of the past. Nostalgia, someone has said, is a lie. It really is. Nostalgia looks at the past through rose-colored glasses. Nostalgia exaggerates the good things and eliminates the negatives. When the Israelites were without food and water, they wistfully remembered the leeks and the garlics of Egypt. I understand how one could long for something spicy after months or years of eating bland food, but leeks and garlics are not the essence of life. Furthermore, the Israelites did not recall the bondage of Egypt, the harshness of their taskmasters, nor the toil of their brickmaking. Nostalgia always distorts the past, dwelling on that which is desirable and minimizing the pains and problems.
The Bible is written in such a way that it is difficult for the reader to relapse into nostalgia. The events of the past are portrayed in a way which does not minimize or seek to conceal men’s sins. While we tend to make heroes of the patriarchs, a simple reading of the text makes it obvious that these were men, like us, with feet of clay. This is even emphasized for us: “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours [subject to like passions as we are, KJV], and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months” (James 5:17).
Fourth, we must be diligent to watch out for the symptoms of nostalgia which are evidence of a spiritual problem. There are several tell-tale signs of the Galatian syndrome for which we must constantly watch. Most notably there is the symptom of a preoccupation with the past to the point that we avoid considering the future and fail to think in terms of the present. Added to this is an unrealistic glorification of the past and a pessimism about the future. The problem with nostalgia is that it inclines us to go backward, rather than forward.
Fifth, we must be able to recognize some of the wrong motivations for turning to the past. The Christian life begins, continues, and culminates with faith. God often develops our faith by putting us into situations where we do not know (and we cannot determine) what lies ahead. At times such as these we face two alternative attitudes: fear or faith. We often seek to turn back the clock when we are afraid of possible unknown dangers which lie ahead. Faith trusts in the God who has proven Himself faithful in the past; fear prefers to return to the past. Is it any wonder that the Israelites wanted to return to Egypt when faced with the Red Sea ahead and the Egyptian armies behind?
Another wrong motive for reliving the past is the desire for a trouble-free life. Whenever we face adversity, our inclination is to turn from it, regardless of the cost. When the Israelites came to a place without food or water, they longed to return to Egypt. They did not like the rigorous life to which God had called them. So too the Hebrew Christians, to whom the Book of Hebrews was written, began to shrink back because of their adversity. We too think of the “good old days” when times are tough.
One of the strongest attractions of the past is that of simplicity. If Paul’s analysis of his culture is correct, it is true that life is simpler for the child who is given very simple, elementary, rules to keep. As we grow older, life becomes much more complex; the issues are not so clear, and the decisions are more agonizing. It is when we become weary of the complexity of life that we yearn for simplicity. Since legalism simplifies life, declaring categorically what is right and what is wrong, we yearn to return to it. Freedom always has the price tag of responsibility. The freedom which we have in Christ is sometimes surrendered by those who prefer simplicity to complexity, formulas to faith. No wonder so many Christians buy books and attend seminars by those who offer formulas which give us ready answers to life’s toughest questions.
Sixth, we need to learn to rightly relate the past, present, and future. When life becomes difficult in the present, the nostalgic saint always turns back to the past and seeks to relive or reproduce it. This way he avoids the pains of the present and the uncertainties of the future. However, faith rises above fear. When times are tough we ought to recall the past, remembering our sinfulness and God’s faithfulness. This should cause us to cast our every fear and doubt upon Him who is faithful. This enables us to look at the future in light of the past, knowing that what God has promised He surely will do. In light of this hope, we should live our lives in obedience to His word, whether or not that brings immediate rewards.
I urge you to read through the Psalms in which you will find the psalmists crying to God out of their present distress, and then looking back on God’s faithfulness in the past, and thus finally looking forward with faith. I would also encourage you to see this same approach to life in the Book of Hebrews, written to those who were becoming faint-hearted because things were getting tough.
Let us turn back to the truths of God’s word, to His promises, and to the evidences of His character. However, let us not seek to turn back the clock to avoid adversity or to make life simple and easy. Let us look forward, knowing that what God has promised, He will accomplish, for He is faithful, a lesson which history emphatically records.
68 The “now” of verse 1 is rightly understood as Paul’s continuation and further development of what he has been teaching in the previous chapter. The imagery of an heir coming of age, however, is not synonymous with that of the “prison-warden” (3:22) or of the “slave-attendant” (3:23-25):
“Paul takes up a different analogy from those used in 3:22-26 to set forth the contrast between the previous period of spiritual immaturity and the new life of full-grown freedom, bringing it up to date by including the theme of inheritance, introduced in 3:29. The law has been compared to a prison-warden and a slave-attendant; now its role is compared to that of the guardians and trustees appointed to take care of a minor and his property.” F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 192.
69 This matter is dealt with in detail by Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Academie Books—Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), cf. especially chapters 4 and 5. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (p. 198), agrees with the conclusion of Lyall that Roman law, rather than Jewish or Greek law, is the basis for Paul’s illustration in 4:1-2.
71 “The word prothesmia is used from classical times onwards of a ‘fixed term’ in a variety of legal contexts, e.g. of the appointed day for the repayment of a loan, …” Bruce, p. 193.
73 There is also a sense in which every man, Jew or Gentile, is under the Law, but I do not believe that Paul is stressing this here. He first likens the Jew under the Law to the “heir” before he is of age, and then he likens the Gentile under the “elemental things” to the Jews, under the Law.
74 From passages like Romans 8:19, I would understand that sonship, like salvation, has both present and future dimensions. While we enter into the freedom of sonship now, and the joy of relating to God as our Father, we will more fully be blessed in eternity. It is that future revelation of the “sons of God” to which Paul refers in Romans 8:19.
76 “… differeth, usually has the sense of ‘surpassing.’” Alan Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), p. 112.
The verses which we are studying reveal a serious rift in the relationship which once existed between Paul and the Galatian saints. While Paul had taken the Galatian error seriously, the Galatians themselves had taken the matter personally. Their warmth and love for Paul had cooled to a chilling aloofness. There was a distance between these once intimate brothers and sisters which was not to be measured in miles.
There are at least three reasons for the widening gap between former friends. First, their relationship was affected by the influence of the Judaizers. They had actively undermined Paul’s apostleship, his message, and his ministry. It is evident that many had come to believe the apostle’s critics. Second, Paul’s austerity drained the relationship. Paul had been quite critical. We do not know all that had previously transpired, but the Book of Galatians itself gives adequate evidence of Paul’s strong reaction to the reports he had received about the Galatian churches. Chapter 1 began with Paul’s bewildered disappointment at the change in doctrine which had already occurred, but this bewilderment quickly changed to blunt severity. Paul subsequently condemned those who had taught such error. Paul was not as harsh to the Galatians, but he did make it clear that they were foolish to have believed such teaching (cf. 3:1). Because of Paul’s stern words the Galatians were rebuffed.
The third reason for the deteriorating relationship between Paul and the Galatians was to be found in the Galatians themselves. It is a part of man’s nature to take criticism or correction personally, especially when we are at fault. You will recall that Adam and Eve communed with God every evening, until they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit. When they heard the sound of the Lord’s coming, they immediately sought to hide themselves from Him. God had done nothing wrong; the wrong was done by Adam and Eve. Their sin had resulted in a separation.
Whenever men depart from the truth, there is division. Division is frequently a symptom of sin. In writing to the Corinthians, Paul condemned the factionalism of the church, which was seen in the various little groups who identified themselves with particular leaders (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-17). The division which had become more and more pronounced between Paul and the Galatians is the occasion for the words of the apostle which we are studying. In these verses Paul reassures his readers that, while they have taken this matter personally, he has not. He seeks to heal their severed relationship by reminding them of the warmth and love they once shared and by revealing his tender feelings for them, as contrasted with the impure motivation of the Judaizers.
There is a distinct change of mood which occurs in this passage. Until now the most affectionate term Paul has used is that of “brothers” (cf. 1:11). However in these verses Paul refers to his readers using the term “my little children” (v. 19), an expression common with the Apostle John but used only here by Paul. Paul is not speaking as a prophet with scorching words, but as a parent, a mother in pain watching for the growth of her child while aware of some distressing signs of ill health. This is probably the warmest and tenderest passage Paul has written in this Galatian epistle. Let us approach it in light of this warm and tender mood seeking to catch a glimpse of the heart of this great apostle and, as he exhorts his readers, to be like him.
12 I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong; 13 but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; 14 and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
Doctrinal deviation involves more than principles; it involves people. Paul is wiser than we, for he understands that while he has been dealing with principles, he must also deal with people. When the Galatians had chosen to follow the teachings of the Judaizers instead of the gospel which Paul preached, they turned away from Paul. Doctrinal deviation is disobedience, and it severs personal relationships, even deeply rooted ones. Paul realized that the error of the Galatians had put a strain on their relationship with him, so he deals very specifically with the personal factor, seeking to rekindle that flame of love which had once burned so brightly.
Paul begins verse 12 with a very significant appeal. He urged the Galatians to become like him.77 There are many ways in which men might imitate Paul, but our text focuses on one specific area in which the Galatians should be like him. They are to imitate Paul in that he was free from the Law like the Gentiles. Paul writes, “I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are” (Gal. 4:12a). Paul’s becoming like the Gentiles was a sensitive issue, especially to those Jewish saints who faithfully continued to observe Jewish ceremonial law:
And when they [the Jerusalem brethren] heard it [Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles] they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” (Acts 21:20-21).
These accusations which the Jerusalem elders sought to prove false clearly can be traced to the Judaizers. There was enough substance to the charges that they were accepted by those who had already concluded that Paul was a traitor to Jewish Christianity. First, Paul, a devout Pharisee, had turned his back on legalistic Judaism when he was converted. This change is briefly described in chapter 1 (vv. 13-17), and in much fuller detail in Philippians, where he likens his works-righteousness to “dung.” Paul had become like the Gentiles in being saved like a Gentile—through faith in Christ.
A second bone of contention between Paul and the Jewish brethren was that Paul refused to distinguish between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. To him, there were only Christians, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female (Gal. 3:28). To those who made much of their Jewishness, Paul’s preaching and teaching was offensive, bordering on heresy. The apostle’s advice to Paul (Acts 21) reveals the intensity of emotions of the Jerusalem Jewish saints toward Paul. The situation was volatile, as later events in the chapter reveal.
Third, Paul’s practice tended to give support to the accusations of those who opposed him. After all, Paul lived like a Gentile when he ministered to the Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-23). The fact that he lived like a Jew when among the Jews only made Paul look hypocritical to those who did not want to understand his teaching and practice. The allegation that Paul actually taught Jewish Christians to cease to live as Jews, not as a matter of concession to enhance their effectiveness in ministry but as a matter of consistent lifestyle, is the error of the accusations made against Paul in Acts 21.
In appealing to the Galatians to become like him, Paul was really urging them to be themselves—Gentiles, who had been saved by God’s grace and who did not need to change their identity. This is the thrust also of 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, where Paul urged the Corinthians to remain in the calling (not the moral condition) which they had when they were saved. Paul had become like the Gentiles in many respects, yet in following the Judaizers, the Galatians had sought to become like Paul before his conversion, intent on achieving a self-made righteousness.
There is a very important cultural subtlety underlying Paul’s becoming like the Gentile Galatians. Superiority is suggested when we insist that others conform to our culture and traditions. By refusing to fellowship with the Gentiles as “those from James” did (Gal. 2:12), and by insisting that the Gentiles live like Jews which the Judaizers did (Acts 15:1, 5), the Judaizers were very clearly claiming superiority as Jews. Such a claim is a virtual denial of the Gospel; therefore Paul reacted strongly against Peter’s error by rebuking him publicly (Gal. 2:14).
If an American who speaks French fluently converses in English during his travels to France, he will offend the French by subtly suggesting that his language is superior. Much damage has been done by Western missionaries who have forced those of a foreign culture to “bow the knee” to Western culture. Paul reminds his readers that he had become one of them, while the Judaizers had turned the tables insisting that the Gentiles must place themselves under the Law in order to be accepted by them.
When Paul writes, “You have done me no wrong” (v. 12b), he faces the strained relationship which exists as the result of the Galatians’ departure from the truth. He diffuses the issue by saying that he has not taken this as a matter of great personal offense. Paul clearly admits that he fears his labor has been in vain (cf. v. 11); but he does not take the failure of others as a personal offense. Paul quickly puts this possibility aside, assuring the Galatians that to him this is not a matter of personal injury.
Paul’s words, like the all too often used “I’m sorry,” may seem to be insincere, but underlying them is an attitude often missing among those who minister. It is very easy for those who invest their lives in others to measure their success in ministry by the success or failure of those to whom they have ministered. Because of this they often take the failures of people as offenses against themselves personally. Those who minister can be deeply offended by the sins of others, seeing them not only as sins against God, but against themselves. Paul assured the Galatians that he did not have this attitude. He was able to keep his ego detached even though his emotions were strong.
In verses 13 and 14, Paul seeks to rekindle the relationship he once had with the Galatians. He reminds them of the way they first met and the warmth of their love for him, in spite of the very adverse circumstances occasioned by his physical illness: “But you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time; and that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.”
Although there is a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of Paul’s “bodily illness,”78 there is no one ailment which can claim clear title to the truth. Indeed, it really does not matter, for Paul’s stress is not on the name of the malady but on its repulsive nature. His initial79 visit to the Galatians was a “trial” to them (v. 14) as it was a temptation for them to shun him in his condition. They could have “despised” or “loathed” him, but they did not.
The utter repulsiveness of Paul’s condition is conveyed by the strong expressions “despised” and “loathed.” “Despised” could mean to regard with utter contempt or at least to disregard. “Loathed” is the rendering of a graphic term which literally means to “spit out.” If you have ever swallowed a bug, you have had a “taste” of the nuance of this word. In the ancient Near East, people would spit after coming in contact with a disease or illness which was repulsive, apparently thinking that there was some therapeutic value in this act. The act of spitting was often associated with that which was repulsive. Paul’s point can hardly be missed: he was a mess, a sickening sight. There was no human attractiveness in his appearance.
Yet in spite of Paul’s pathetic physical appearance, the reception of the Galatians was exceedingly warm. Far from merely tolerating him, they received him warmly, as an angel—better still, as Christ Himself (v. 14). There is only one explanation for such a response. Their reception of Paul was not conditioned by his human appeal but was dependent upon the message which he brought, the truth of the gospel by which the Galatians were saved.
I am reminded of the Old Testament account of the four lepers in 2 Kings 7. They were starving, like their Israelite brethren, because of the siege of the Syrian army. They decided that it would be better to risk death at the edge of a Syrian sword than the slow and agonizing torture of death by starvation. So they slipped away to the enemy’s camp, only to discover that God had routed them, leaving all of their supplies behind. In spite of the loathsome disease of the lepers, their life-giving message was warmly received, for the message was of greater import than the messenger.
15 Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness, that if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?
The warm and tender love which once bound Paul and the Galatians together had dissipated. Paul indicates that his feelings for the Galatians had not changed—he had not taken offense at the Galatians. Why then was the relationship between Paul and the Galatians strained? This question and its answers are found in verses 15 and 16.
Paul points out the irony of this situation. When Paul had been plagued with his physical infirmity, the Galatians had ignored his repulsive appearance and taken him in warmly. When Paul wrote the epistle, the relationship had cooled. Paul probes the reason for the faltering friendship in verse 15. They had once felt blessed by Paul’s presence, but no longer. They had once been willing to pluck out their very eyes, but sacrifice had turned to rejection. What could have brought about this dramatic change?
The answer is found in verse 16. Paul had become the Galatians’ enemy by telling them the truth. I assume this meant that Paul had spoken or written to the Galatian Christians after he had heard of the deception and disruption caused by the Judaizers. He informed them of the error of their ways when he learned of their allurement to the works-righteousness of the Judaizers. Here is true irony. Paul had been warmly received because of the truth; now he is given the cold shoulder because of the truth.
Verses 15 and 16 explain the reason for the waning relationship between Paul and the Galatian saints—Paul persisted in pursuing the Galatians with the truth, while the Galatians foolishly followed the Judaizers who denied the truth.
17 They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out, in order that you may seek them. 18 But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you.
The Galatians were deceived into following the Judaizers because of their flattering words and subtle threats. The Judaizers sought to drive a wedge between Paul and the Galatian saints by turning them to another gospel. In verse 17 the pronoun “them” refers to the Judaizers who were pursuing the Galatians, although their pursuit was based upon impure motives and methods. At its roots, their desire to “convert” these Christians was evil.
You will remember that our Lord had strong words of rebuke for the scribes and Pharisees who were akin to the Judaizers: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15).
The zeal of the Judaizers in pursuit of the Galatian saints was flattering and must have played a significant part in “bewitching” (3:1) these naive neophytes. The appeal to the Galatians must have been somewhat like the flattery a church today feels when the National Council of Churches seeks its support. Was there some feeling of acceptance in this pursuit? Paul questions the veracity of the motives (and I suspect the methods) of the Judaizers as compared with his own. Paul invites others to seek out the Galatians but only if they have pure motives.
The motives of the Judaizers were not above reproach. As the spokesman and authorities of Judaizers they sought to subject Gentile Galatian Christians in order to exclude them from Judaism. The direct access to God which was provided through Christ was thus sacrificed for the mediatorial role of the Judaizers, a thinly veiled return to the priestly system of the old covenant.
Unfortunately, this same mentality is all too evident in Christian circles today. Some Christians seek leadership roles so that they can “lord it over” others, telling them what to do and how to do it, in the guise of biblical leadership. Some husbands abuse their biblical responsibility to be leaders in their homes and make virtual “pawns” of their wives. Others, under the label of “disciple-makers,” create dependency relationships in order to have others under their authority. Let us guard against this attitude. It is as prevalent in the church of our Lord as in the world, but more piously practiced.
Paul sought the Galatians as well, but for entirely different reasons. He desired to make them followers of Christ, not of men. He wanted them to be God-pleasers, not man-pleasers. Paul’s absence, I believe, was not just an unfortunate necessity but a matter of principle. He left so that these new believers could not become too dependent upon him. Unfortunately, in his absence, the Galatians sought other leaders and the Judaizers seized the opportunity to establish their authority.
One of the reasons the Galatians followed the Judaizers is the subtle but all-too-frequent fact of spiritual life: Christians not only want a visible evidence of our Lord’s presence, but also desire a visible manifestation of His leading. Power-hungry people like the Judaizers often seized leadership. Was it only coincidence that the golden calf was fashioned in the absence of Moses? Was it by chance that the Israelites demanded a king like all the other nations? I think not.
Paul implied by his statement at the end of verse 18 that he was still commendably seeking the Galatians by writing this epistle. He wished that the Galatians could grasp this. In his absence, the Judaizers had gained a foothold, offering what appeared to be a higher level of spirituality. They were thus qualified, in the minds of the gullible Galatians, to be spiritual leaders. Paul was not so troubled that the Galatians followed others than himself, but that the Judaizers’ motives and message were wrong. When the Galatians rejected only Paul, they also rejected the gospel he preached.
19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you— 20 but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Unlike other passages which Paul has written in this epistle, this section is not a tightly woven argument which is drawn to a precise conclusion. The mood is not argumentative, but rather is an appeal to the Galatians on the basis of a broken heart. His authority as an apostle does not underly this appeal, but rather the agony of a mother for her wayward child. “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you—but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you” (Gal. 4:19-20).
Paul has elsewhere described himself in motherly terms, emphasizing the tenderness and love which he had toward those to whom he ministered (1 Thes. 2:7). In this passage, however, it is the agony of the heart of a mother which Paul is seeking to convey to the wayward Galatians. Paul’s pain is as though he was once again giving spiritual birth to these, his children. Having begun verse 19 with an allusion to his readers as children, Paul continues with this image, using the analogy of the birth process and the pain which a mother undergoes to bring her child to life. Paul had once undergone such pain (Rom. 4:13-14, 2 Tim. 3:10-12; cp. 2 Cor. 6:1-10), but now the foolishness of the Galatians was needlessly causing him to suffer this pain again.
In verse 19 Paul changes the imagery slightly, employing an expression (“till Christ is formed in you”) which was used of the development of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Just as the child in the womb develops into what his particular endowment at conception determined him to be, so the Christian grows to become what Christ has saved and destined him to be. The Galatians had turned to another gospel, thus interrupting their growth process resulting in Paul’s pain. Let them return to the gospel, Paul preached, and let them become what grace alone can make them.
The last verse (v. 20) exposes Paul’s grief-stricken heart even more fully. He expresses his wish that he could be with his children and speak tenderly to them. However, he can only tell them in this letter how puzzled and pained he is at what has become of them. If they still possess the love which they once had toward Paul, his pain will stop them short. Then they must reassess their decision to follow other teachers whose message is contrary to that which saved them.
This passage provides us with several principles which should guide us in our response to those who, like the Galatians, have chosen to depart from the truth.
(1) Paul’s gentleness and graciousness makes it as easy as possible for the Galatians to repent and return to the faith they had once held dear. The gentleness and warmth which Paul manifests in Galatians is consistent with that which he called for in 2 Timothy:
But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Tim. 2:23-26).
By dealing so gently and graciously with these erring brethren, Paul seeks to make their return to the truth as easy as possible.
(2) Being gentle and gracious does not mean being soft on sin. While this particular passage is warm and affectionate, we must remember the context, which includes some very strong words of rebuke (for example, “You foolish Galatians,” in v. 3). Too often, in the name of graciousness, error in the life of another is either minimized or dealt with in a vague and fuzzy way. This was not Paul’s practice. The warmth and tenderness of this section is a kind of compensation for the toughness of the others. Tough and Tender is not merely the contemporary title of a book; it is the way Paul dealt with sin in the lives of those he loved.
(3) Paul was tough because he had a deep-seated love for the Galatians. Some Christians seem to think that love should never be tough, but only tender. I understand from our passage that Paul’s deep love for the Galatians provided much of his motivation for writing this epistle and for speaking candidly to the folly of their following the Judaizers. You will remember in the Book of Proverbs that a parent who does not discipline his child is said to “hate” that child (Prov. 13:24). Love disciplines. This is also the point of the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 12, where he informs his reader that chastening is an evidence of sonship and of God’s deep and abiding love in the life of His children. The reason the church so often fails to deal with sin is that it lacks the kind of love which acts decisively. The love which motivates discipline also makes chastening more easily received and endured.
(4) This passage reveals to us the power of personal relationships. We expect biblical doctrine to have a significant impact on the lives of those who have departed from the truth of God’s word, and rightly so. Galatians 3 and 4 are heavily doctrinal. Our particular passage serves to remind us of the powerful impact of personal relationships. Personal relationships tend to fragment in the face of serious doctrinal deviation, but Paul uses his personal relationships in seeking to restore wayward saints to the truth.
Our Lord instructed those who were aware of a problem to seek to set the matter straight in Matthew 18. Is it not most likely that those who would first confront the sinner are those who know him best, those whose relationship with him is the strongest? If personal relationships are a powerful force in the lives of other Christians, we can understand why fellowship is such a vital factor in the life of the church. Fellowship is that bond which provides the basis for rebuke and correction. Fellowship is an extremely strong cohesive bond, which makes it hard for the wayward saint to leave those whom he loves and who love him.
As I understand the Scriptures, the bond of fellowship between believers should not be broken unless a brother is guilty of a serious offense, and after having been rebuked, refuses to repent. Only then should we break fellowship with such a one. Church discipline is thus seen to be a very significant action, for it terminates the fellowship of Christians from the one who has chosen to act as an unbeliever.
This also helps me to understand why Paul reacted so strongly to Peter’s hypocrisy in the second chapter of Galatians. Church discipline ultimately results in the withdrawal of fellowship from the wayward saint, including the intimacy of sharing a meal together (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11). When Peter ceased to eat with the Gentiles, he was, in effect, refusing to relate to the Gentile Christians as believers and was thus denying the gospel. Personal relationships are extremely significant in the life of the church.
(5) Fifth, we are reminded of the power of the truth of God’s Word. It was the truth Paul preached which saved the Galatians and which led the Galatians to warmly receive Paul, even though his illness made him repulsive. It was the truth which bound Paul and the Galatians, Jews and Gentiles, into one body. Truth was the basis for real unity. Any unity which closes its eyes to the truth is humanly contrived and not divine.
The truth of the gospel is powerful and able to save men. In Romans 1:16 Paul spoke of the gospel as “the power of God for salvation.” To pervert the truth of the gospel is a most serious offense, and results in dire consequences. No wonder Paul had such strong words to say about the Judaizers (cf. 1:6-10). Men are not saved by a messenger, nor the persuasiveness of his methods but by the truth, the message (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17, 21; 2:3-5; 2 Cor 2:17). Frankly, there is too much emphasis on methods today and not enough on the message. Too much attention is given to the messenger and too little to the message.
What is your excuse for not sharing your faith? Are you, like Moses, excusing yourself because you do not speak powerfully and persuasively? The power is in the message, not the messenger. It is the truth that saves men. If Paul’s gospel could save men, even when Paul’s personal appearance was offensive and repulsive, will the gospel not save men today, in spite of the weaknesses of the messenger? This passage strips away all of our feeble excuses for not sharing our faith, for the power of God is inseparably intertwined with the truth.
The principle of the power of the proclamation of God’s truth applies to more than just evangelism. Unfortunately we have become so conscious of methods and men, we have minimized the power of the message of God’s Word. We have become so mesmerized by the glamour and glitter of television programs and preachers that we find it difficult to accept the message unless the messenger is appealing and glamorous. Let us learn to pay more heed to the message and less to the messenger.
77 I believe Cole completely misses the point of Paul’s words when he quotes the NEB’s rendering of them: “Put yourselves in my place … for I have put myself in yours.” R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 120-121. Equally untenable is his suggested paraphrase, “Be as frank and loving with me as I have always been with you” (p. 121). To his credit, Cole begins with a literal rendering, “Be like me, as I too (have become) like you” (p. 120).
78 The “bodily illness” of which Paul speaks here has been the matter of a great deal of speculation. Some of the options considered are opthalmia (eye trouble), epilepsy, and malaria. I agree with F. F. Bruce, who concludes,
“The fact that such diverse ailments as malaria, epilepsy, opthalmia (to mention no others) have been suggested on the basis of this passage indicates that there can be no certain diagnosis. The infirmity may have been one of these three, or it may have been something quite different; it may have been identical with the ‘splinter’ of 2 Cor. 12:7, or it may not.” F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 209.
The nature of the ailment makes little difference today. The Galatians knew well what it was. What we know (which is all we need to know) is that this malady made Paul not only unattractive, but repulsive, so that the natural inclination of the Galatians would have been to reject him when he came to them.
79 When Paul spoke of his visit the “first time” in verse 13, the Greek expression which he employed could be taken in one of two ways: (a) a more technical and specific meaning, equivalent to “the first of two” visits; or (b) a more general “former,” without any particular reference to whether or not there were other visits. The reason why this matter is debated and discussed is that the rendering of the expression is debated because it affects the location of the Galatian churches, (the “north” or the “south” Galatian theories) as well as the dating of the epistle. In reality, rather than the rendering determining which view a scholar supports, the view held tends to determine the rendering.
Harold Bussell has written a very excellent book entitled, Unholy Devotion: Why Cults Lure Christians. He gives many examples of the ways in which evangelical churches contribute to attitudes and expectations which predispose individuals toward the cults. As I was studying our passage, I realized that Bussell failed to include one crucial matter in his book. If I could add a chapter it would be entitled, “The Hermeneutics of Heresy.” (Hermeneutics is the method by which the Bible is interpreted.) The sloppy “spiritualizing” of many evangelical preachers has paved the way for the “esoteric” interpretations of the cultist. Both the sloppy evangelical and the cultist use the same method of interpreting the Bible. Thus, the gullible Christian is inclined to accept cultists’ message, especially if he has not been taught to think and to study for himself.
Satan has very successfully blindsided evangelical Christians by exclusively focusing our attention on the issues of the inerrancy and the authority of the Scriptures. Of course these are very important matters, but it is of little value to hold to the accuracy (inerrancy) and authority of the Bible if we obscure or distort its meaning by our sloppy interpretation. Discomforting though it may be, we need to recognize that some distorted forms of Christianity, along with many cults, claim to cling to the inerrancy and authority of the Bible just as dogmatically as we who are evangelical Christians. They differ with our interpretation of the authoritative word of God. J. I. Packer makes this point in his book, Beyond the Battle for the Bible. Packer writes,
The major differences between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics—papal authority, the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the mass, the form and credentials of the ordained ministry, the way of salvation by grace through faith—are rooted in differences of interpretation; so are the major cleavages between Christians of all persuasions and Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their anti-Trinitarianism, their anticipations of Armageddon, and their legalistic doctrine of salvation; yet both Roman Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses have historically maintained the inerrancy of Scripture … and have claimed that all their distinctives are Bible-based. You see, then, how important the issue of interpretation is.80
Because of the intensity of the debate over the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures, we have tended to overlook the critical importance of accurately interpreting and applying the Scriptures we so vigorously defend as inerrant and authoritative. Many unbelievers have become skeptical of biblical exposition, concluding that the Bible has no clear word from God to them. This should be no surprise since they have observed that people holding opposite points of view have claimed the teaching of the Bible in support of their views. They believe that Christians are able to make the Bible say whatever they want. Unfortunately, there is a good measure of truth in their accusations.
Our passage in Galatians 4 is of great import to this matter of accurate biblical interpretation, both in terms of what it does not teach, as well as what it does teach. Many tell us that this text sanctions the allegorical method of interpretation, which seeks a “deeper” spiritual meaning below the “shallow” surface of the literal. They believe that Paul has utilized the allegorical method in this passage to outdo his opponents. I do not believe that this is the case, as our exposition will show.
This concluding passage in Galatians 4 is crucial to the 20th century Christians because we face precisely the same problem the Galatian saints did in the 1st century: How does the New Testament saint interpret and apply the Old Testament, which was written principally to the Jews? I believe that Paul strikes at the heart of the problem of the Judaizers—their hermeneutics, their method of interpreting Scripture. In our study we will focus first on the meaning of Paul’s message to the Galatians, and then consider the difference Paul’s method employs from those of the Judaizers. Let us prayerfully consider our text, not only to understand Paul’s message, but to learn his method of handling the Scriptures.
21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
Up to this point Paul has been refuting the message of the Judaizers. Now in verse 21 Paul throws down the gauntlet, exposing the methods of the Judaizers. Paul is operating on the premise that bad methods produce bad messages. Let those who desire to be under the Law consider the way in which they must learn from the Law.
This is by no means a problem unique to the Galatian churches, Paul, and the Judaizers. It is the same problem which those who desire to know and to obey the truth face in dealing with those who wish to distort the truth. Peter wrote that false teachers were distorting the Scriptures which Paul had written (2 Pet. 3:16). Our Lord’s basic difference with the scribes and Pharisees concerned their method of interpreting the Scriptures. Jesus sought to expose the sloppy way in which His adversaries handled the Old Testament Scriptures (cf. Matt. 22:29-31; 23:24). The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) was our Lord’s explanation of the difference between His hermeneutics and those of the scribes and Pharisees.
If you stop to think about it for a moment you will realize that the first New Testament Scripture which the Galatians read would have likely been the book addressed to them. The vast majority of Scripture available to them at that time would have been the Old Testament. Thus they were challenged with the problem of how a Gentile Christian was to interpret and apply the Old Testament Scriptures, which were written to the Jews. It appears to me that the answer of the Judaizers was quite simple, even if wrong. They taught that a Gentile should become a Jew, and then interpret and apply everything literally and directly to himself. This method fails, however, to take into account the change in God’s dealing with the Jews, before and after the coming of Christ. Paul’s challenge in verse 21 surfaces this most basic issue of hermeneutics, for different methods result in different messages.
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
Verses 22 and 23 outline the passage and its essential facts. Paul includes the Book of Genesis under a broader use of the term “law.” The “law” includes more than just the Commandments given to Moses, and must be interpreted in light of the larger context.
Notice how differently the biblical writers referred to their text. Sometimes they simply introduced Scripture with an expression such as, “it is written.” In other instances they would identify the book from which the text was taken. In Luke’s gospel our Lord referred to a text in Exodus by the designation, “the bush” (Luke 20:37). You see, they did not have the chapters and paragraphs designated, nor passage divided into verse as we do. Consequently, the way texts were cited may sound strange to us.
The events to which Paul refers in this passage are found in Genesis 16-21. It is thus a rather large portion of Scripture, not a mere handful of verses. Paul outlines the text according to his purposes. Abraham had two wives, each of which bore a son. The slave woman, Hagar, bore a son who was the result of mere fleshly effort, while the free woman, Sarah, bore a son who was the product of God’s promise and His power. From this account in Genesis, identified by these facts, Paul draws out some significant details in the following verses.
24 This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband.”
The first expression in verse 24, “This contains an allegory” (NASB), is a puzzling construction to many of the commentators,81 resulting in a number of alternative renderings. I believe that the translators of the NASB have wisely handled the difficulties, stressing that Paul uses the passage allegorically, without interpreting it allegorically.
Before we attempt to draw any conclusions about Paul’s method of interpreting the events surrounding the two sons of Abraham, let us concentrate on the message which Paul wishes us to grasp. In verses 24-27 Paul calls the Galatian readers’ attention to a similarity between their circumstances and those of Abraham’s two wives and their sons. Abraham’s two wives were a kind of personification of the two covenants (the Abrahamic and the Mosaic) which Paul has been comparing and contrasting.
Hagar personifies the Mosaic Covenant, and her slave son is symbolic of all the sons of the Mosaic Covenant. Paul likens this bondwoman to that covenant which proceeded from Mt. Sinai in Arabia. The children of the Covenant are called slaves (v. 24). Having clearly identified Hagar with the Mosaic Covenant, Paul presses on to identify this woman with the present earthly Jerusalem (v. 25). This was the capital, as it were, of unbelieving Judaism which was enslaved by its religious system that rejected liberty in Christ (v. 25).
Paul contrasts Hagar and her bondage with Sarah and her son, who was not only free but Abraham’s heir (vv. 26-27). Sarah represents the heavenly Jerusalem, whose sons are free (v. 26). Paul cites Isaiah 54:1 to establish the relationship of Sarah to the heavenly Jerusalem. The connection between the two is not a figment of Paul’s fanciful imagination, as the allegorizers would have us believe. The context of this passage from Isaiah reveals God’s promise to restore Zion after her captivity. It is not accidental that it follows immediately on the heels of the promise of Messiah in chapters 52 and 53. The bounty and blessing of the restored Jerusalem is described in terms of a barren woman, who once bore the reproach of her barrenness but will afterward be blessed with more sons than the married woman. Paul takes up the figure of “sons” from this text and applies it to the restored Jerusalem. What may appear to us to be a spiritualization of this passage is actually the result of Paul’s more careful handling, based on his greater insight into this text.82
28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
The parallels between Abraham’s two wives and the Galatian problem become razor sharp in verses 28-31. These verses serve as not only the conclusion of this passage, but also for the entire section of chapters 3 and 4. Notice the relevance of Paul’s “allegory” to the situation in Galatia.
(1) Those who live by faith are the heirs of Abraham, not those who live by law-works. The scribes and the Pharisees, along with the Judaizers of the Galatians, had prided themselves on being spiritually superior because they were the “sons of Abraham.” Paul’s reference to Sarah and Hagar conveyed an amazing reality: the Judaizers were the sons of Abraham, but they were not the sons of Sarah. They had the right father, but the wrong mother. Only those who have come to God through faith in Christ are the sons of Abraham through Sarah. Men who approach God through their own righteousness (of law-works) are really sons of Hagar, under bondage. Once again in graphic terms Paul has pressed the point of the superiority of faith over works, of grace over law, of the promises made to Abraham over the temporary restraints of the law.
(2) The Judaizers were persecuting the Gentile Christians by insisting that keeping the Old Testament Law is a priority and a privilege. Abraham seemed to be aloof to the persecution of Isaac by Ishmael, but it was apparent to Sarah. Ishmael’s treatment of Isaac was paralleled by the treatment of the Gentiles by the Judaizers. Just as the flesh wars with the Spirit (5:17), so Ishmael, a child of the flesh, was at odds with Isaac, a child of the promise, born according to the Spirit (4:29). The Gentiles were not only bewitched (3:1) by these false teachers, they were actually being mistreated. It was time for them to wake up. They were not to be flattered by the zealous pursuit of the Judaizers (4:14) but to recognize their zealousness for what it was—persecution.
(3) The Galatian saints were instructed by this event in the life of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar, concerning how they should respond to the Judaizers. Abraham loved Ishmael (cf. Gen. 17:18) and was reluctant to expel him and his mother (Gen. 21:11). It was only due to Sarah’s hard-line stand and God’s directive to do what his wife demanded that Ishmael was sent away.
Admittedly I have always felt that Sarah was a grouch. Frankly, I still do. Grouch or not, Sarah was right, and Abraham was wrong. He wanted to try to conciliate his two sons and their mothers, but Sarah would have none of this. Sarah had much more sensitivity to the hostility between these two sons and the danger of “peaceful coexistence.” She knew that the two sons were incompatible and must be separated. Furthermore, from God’s words of instruction to Abraham we can conclude that she was right. The Scripture tells us what must be done: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman” (Gen. 21:10; Gal. 4:30).
Isaac’s mother Sarah was correct in insisting that Hagar and Ishmael must go. I do not think that it is mere coincidence that in the immediately preceding context (4:19) Paul used the imagery of a mother’s love for her child. You see, Paul, like Sarah, saw the only proper course of action clearly, and like her, he made the next step painfully pointed. Paul was saying through the mouth of Sarah, “Throw out those Judaizers, for they are not compatible with salvation by faith!”
The argument of chapters 3 and 4 has been aptly summarized by this “allegory.” The Galatian Christians are the sons of Abraham and thus heirs of the blessings God promised him and provided in Christ. To go back under the law is to seek an inferior status, to which even the Jews dare not return. The pursuit of the Judaizers and their teaching was really persecution. Let the Gentile churches deal appropriately with the Judaizers by casting them out, just as Abraham had done with Hagar and her son.
The message of these verses is clear and concise. The remaining question is, “What is Paul’s method of dealing with the Old Testament Scriptures, and is it a pattern for Christians today?” In particular, the issue revolves around the term “allegory” which we find in verse 24, along with the way in which Paul makes use of the story of Abraham’s two wives and their sons. I am especially concerned about the sense in which Paul is using the term “allegory” and what this teaches us about interpreting Scripture. Let us consider both aspects of this question as we seek to apply Paul’s message and his method to our lives.
I believe that much of the problem in this passage is lodged in an imprecise definition of the term “allegory.” I will begin by differentiating three ways in which “allegory” has been understood and practiced, and then attempt to identify which of these senses fits Paul’s methodology.
(1) There is the allegorical method of interpretation. The allegorical method of interpretation views the literal meaning of the text as elementary and secondary to the “spiritual” interpretation. Those who are immature or uninitiated into the “deeper things” are able to grasp only the literal meaning. The primary problem with the allegorical method is that the “spiritual” interpretation is highly subjective, and often has little correspondence to the text being interpreted. A couple of examples of allegorical interpretation may help to give a feel for this approach to interpretation. In the examples below, observe how the literal meaning of the text is set aside, and replaced with a much more subjective meaning, which is not tied to the text by careful analysis.
For example, Abraham’s trek to Palestine is really the story of a Stoic philosopher who leaves Chaldea (sensual understanding) and stops at Haran, which means “holes,” and signifies the emptiness of knowing things by the holes, that is the senses. When he becomes Abraham he becomes a truly enlightened philosopher. To marry Sarah is to marry abstract wisdom.83
The following is Swedenborg’s “interpretation” of Matthew 24:29-31:
Those who understand these words according to the sense of the letter have no other belief than that during that closing period, which is called the final judgment, all these things are to occur as they are described in the literal sense. … Such is the belief of most men in the church at the present day.
But those who so believe are ignorant of the arcana that lie hid in every particular of the Word. For in every particular of the Word there is an internal sense which treats of things spiritual and heavenly, not of things natural and worldly which are treated of in the sense of the letter. And this is true not only of the general meaning of many expressions, it is true of every single expression. …
It is according to that sense that what the Lord says in the words quoted above respecting His coming in the clouds of heaven must be understood. The “sun” there that is to be darkened signifies the Lord in respect to love; the “moon” the Lord in respect to faith; “stars” knowledges of good and truth, or of love and faith; “the sign of the Son of man in heaven” the manifestation of Divine truth; “the tribes of the earth” that shall mourn, all things relating to truth and good or to faith and love; “the coming of the Lord in the clouds of heaven with power and glory” His presence in the Word, and revelation, “clouds” signifying the sense of the letter of the Word, and “glory” the internal sense of the Word; “the angels with a trumpet and a great sound” signify heaven as a source of Divine truth. From the meaning of these words of the Lord it is evident that at the end of the church, when there is no longer any love, and consequently no faith, the Lord will open the internal meaning of the Word and reveal arcana of heaven. …84
The ancient Greeks resorted to an allegorical method of interpreting their religion when it failed to square with the more modern findings in the scientific fields. The absurdities of Greek mythology, with its pantheon of gods, which were grotesque, absurd, or immoral,85 were accommodated to Greek science and philosophy by allegorizing them. The Alexandrian Jews adopted this methodology in their attempt to make the Old Testament compatible with Greek literature and philosophy.86 Eventually, the allegorical method found its way into the church:
Here is one of the strange fates of history. The allegorical method arose to save the reputation of ancient Greek religious poets. This method of interpretation was adopted by the Alexandrian Greeks.…Then it was bequeathed to the Christian Church. “By a singular concurrence of circumstances,” continues Farrar, “the Homeric studies of pagan philosophers suggested first to the Jews and then, through them, to Christians, a method of Scriptural interpretation before unheard of which remained unshaken for more than fifteen hundred years.”87
In more recent times, the allegorical method of interpretation has been utilized to accommodate the alleged “errors” of the Bible to the supposedly more reliable facts of philosophy or science. The solution was to “demythologize” the Bible, separating the literal errors from the spiritual kernel of truth, which could be determined by interpreting the text allegorically.
The common view of the commentaries on our text is that Paul has employed the allegorical method of interpretation. Even the finest scholars see Paul using the allegorical method of interpretation in the events of the life of Abraham regarding his two sons. Foremost among such scholars is Burton who concludes,
The apostle is then speaking not of what the passage meant as uttered by the original writer, but of the meaning conveyed by the passage as it stands. In common with Philo before him, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Origen after him, he conceived of the scriptures as speaking in his own day; and since Paul elsewhere in this epistle and in Romans speaks without qualification of Abraham as a historical character, it is apparent that in this passage at least he ascribes to the scripture as now speaking a meaning distinct from that which it bore as originally written, regarding the latter as representing historic truth, the latter [sic.] as conveying spiritual truth. The only question can be whether in this case he regarded the spiritual truth as really conveyed and vouched for by scripture, or only for the purposes of appeal to the Galatians adopted a current method of using scripture.88
I believe that the allegorical method of interpretation is invalid, and that it is never employed by the biblical writers. There are several reasons for coming to this conclusion. First, allegorical interpretation is totally subjective and has no controls which keep interpretation clear of the bias of the interpreter. Second, if the method of allegorical interpretation is subjective, the motive is even more questionable. In each of the cases mentioned above where the allegorical method of interpretation was employed, it was used in order to accommodate religious dogma or “revelation” to other systems of truth which were considered more accurate and authoritative. The allegorical method is employed when the literal method is unacceptable. The Scriptures would only need to be interpreted allegorically if (a) the scholar could not discern the literal meaning or, (b) the scholar could not accept the literal meaning. Neither reason is biblically valid.
Third, it is inconceivable that Paul would employ a method which he himself condemns. From a number of passages Paul has written concerning the “false teaching” which plagued the church of his day, we can conclude that a large part of this doctrine was speculative in nature (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3-11; 4:6-7; 2 Tim. 2:23-26; Titus 1:14). Paul is here condemning the method as well as the message of the false teacher. I cannot therefore believe that Paul would employ a method which he did not approve, even if it would have been impressive to his reader. Paul was as meticulous about his methodology as he was his message (1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1,4; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; cf. 10:10).
Finally, the allegorical method of interpretation does not square with the use of allegory in the Bible, which is our next point.
(2) While the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture is unacceptable, the use of allegory as a teaching method is frequently found in the Bible. Allegorical interpretation seeks to minimize and to modify the literal meaning of a passage. The goal of the allegorical method of teaching is to maximize the literal meaning of a passage or principle. This is achieved when the essence of the truth is clarified and communicated by likening it to something more quickly or graphically comprehended. Education is based upon analogy. The moon, we teach, is round, with a rough surface, like an orange. The kingdom of God, our Lord taught, was like a mustard seed, or leaven, or a sower sowing seed (cf. Mark 4; Matt. 13).89
As I presently understand biblical allegory, we may think of the subject in terms of two categories. The first is what might be called “fictional allegory.” In this instance, a story is made up which, by analogy, illustrates a biblical truth in a more graphic or effective way. The parables of our Lord fall into this category of allegory. The parables did not need to be historical events; they were stories which accurately communicated a lesson, a truth, or a principle. The parable of the prodigal son served (among other things) to unmask the hypocrisy and pride of the scribes and Pharisees, who were jealous of the grace of God shown to “sinners.” Nathan’s “parable” of the rich man who stole the poor man’s lone lamb forcefully portrayed the evil of David’s actions in taking the life and the wife of Uriah. In the secular world, Aesop’s fables are a kind of allegory. C. S. Lewis, in his Chronicles of Narnia series, has effectively employed allegory to convey spiritual truths.
A second and rarer form of allegory is that which Paul employs in Galatians 4. Here the analogy or allegory is based upon an actual historical account, where the details of that account are related to the present circumstances of the listener or reader. The account of Sarah and Hagar is not considered fiction by Paul, but fact. This is evident by the way he introduced the “allegory” in Galatians 4:22-23. The translators of the NASB have very nicely handled this by rendering Paul’s words, “This contains an allegory” (Gal. 4:24), which allows for an allegory to be drawn out of an historical account.
When biblical allegory is employed, it is done in a way that is very different from that of non-biblical writers. Below are some of the characteristics of biblical allegory which are evident in Paul’s handling of the Hagar and Sarah event.
When the allegorical method of teaching is employed, it is always evident. In verse 24, Paul indicates to his readers that he is using the events outlined in verses 22 and 23 in an allegorical way. When our Lord spoke in parables, the literary form was such that no one considered it anything but allegory. The use of allegory will always be indicated, either in style or by statement. Those who handle other Scriptures allegorically have failed to observe the meticulous way in which the Scripture itself dictates its interpretation.
No doubt is left in the reader’s mind concerning the historicity of the events interpreted allegorically. Paul clearly identifies the events surrounding the incident between Hagar and Sarah as historical, not fiction (cf. Gal. 4:21-23). In the parables of our Lord, literary form is such that the hearer or reader did not think in terms of a historical event. Jesus referred to historical events very differently. The allegorical school of interpretation takes accounts which profess to be history and pronounces them to be myth.
In the Bible, allegory is always based upon truth which is founded on sound exegesis, literal interpretation, and consistency with biblical theology. Some scholars fail to make the very elementary observation that this passage is at the end of the major section including chapters 2 and 3 of Galatians, and it serves as its conclusion. The purpose of this passage is not to develop the argument of this section, but to drive it home. The major points which Paul seeks to emphasize are those which he has previously developed in the epistle. No new matter is presented in this concluding passage. What Paul wants his reader to experience is seeing the same truth in a new light, and then acting on it. The allegory of Galatians 4 is based upon the exegesis and theology of the previous sections. Those who must resort to allegory in order to establish their point should be immediately suspect. Those who have a point clearly and concisely established on the basis of exegesis and sound theology may freely use allegory to express it.
When the basis of the allegory is a historical event, drawn from a biblical text (as in Galatians 4), the parallels are very precisely drawn to correspond to the text. When you compare the fanciful allegorical interpretations cited above with that of Paul in our text, there is a vast difference. Fanciful allegorical interpretation barely draws parallels between the passage and its “spiritual interpretation.” Such interpretor cannot convincingly demonstrate the correlation of the text and its meaning. On the other hand, since the interpretation is so speculative, one can hardly challenge the interpretation either. (Remember, only the very spiritual and enlightened have the ability to grasp such “deep” truth.) Paul’s parallels very precisely establish the correspondence between the historical event, the literal interpretation of it, and the circumstances which are compared by analogy.90 Let those who would allegorize be as precise as Paul.
The principle goal of allegory is the apprehension and application of a given truth. The allegory or parable is employed when an abstract truth needs to be understood and applied in concrete terms. In good teaching, abstract truth is taught by analogy (allegory, if you please) in very clear, concrete terms. The value of the method of allegory is that it makes clear by comparison what would otherwise have been confusing. This was certainly true in Galatians 4. Paul has dealt with a very complex and confusing matter which has taken nearly four chapters to convey. With one brief illustration, he drives home the essence of the matter: (1) The Judaizers are in bondage and would have the Galatians bound also. (2) The Judaizers are actually persecuting the Galatians. (3) The Galatians should throw out the Judaizers. The purpose of biblical allegory is precisely opposite to the improper method of allegorical interpretation. The Bible seeks to make truth clear and relevant; the allegorizers try to set aside what is clear by focusing on the abstract. This is an ingenious way to avoid truth that is too pointed. The biblical communicator seeks to apply God’s truth; others seek to avoid it.
Let us move from the abstract to the concrete. A principle is found in Paul’s use of this Old Testament passage which should guide every Christian in their use of the Scriptures: INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURE LITERALLY AND APPLY IT BY ANALOGY. The process is not quite as simple, but it can be outlined in this way. (1) Interpret the passage literally, in the light of the context, background, culture, grammar, and biblical theology. (2) Determine the principle or principles which the interpretation reveals. (3) Seek to apply the principle as you consider the points of parallel between the biblical passage and your own particular situation.
My understanding of Paul’s methods and message in our text is that allegory is not a method of interpretation, but of communication and application. The problem facing the Galatians was how they as Gentiles were to interpret and apply the Old Testament. The Judaizers were wrong in teaching that the solution was to become Jewish and then apply the Old Testament directly. Paul’s solution was to interpret the passage literally, determine the underlying principles, and then find the parallels with the present circumstances.
The fact is that all of us must use this method of biblical interpretation and application, for there is seldom, if ever, an instance in which our circumstances will precisely parallel those of a person in Scripture. You and I will never be a son of Jacob, sold into Egyptian slavery by brothers, wrongly accused and imprisoned, and so on as Joseph was. The key to understanding and applying the Scriptures describing the trials and testings of Joseph is to interpret the text literally and accurately, so that we learn the principles which governed Joseph’s attitudes and actions; we then find situations in our lives where these same principles relate, not directly, but by analogy.
This has always been the way God intended Christians to learn. Consider Abraham, for example. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, in obedience to God’s command. “He considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type” (Heb. 11:19).
As far as the Bible informs us and this passage in Hebrews implies, God never directly told Abraham that He would raise Isaac from the dead. Abraham inferred this. If you will, Abraham came to this conclusion by analogy.
Let me attempt to recreate, to some degree, the process. In Romans 4, Paul wrote of Abraham’s faith in regard to God’s promise of a son:
In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform (Rom. 4:18-21).
Abraham had been promised a son by God, the child of both he and Sarah. Abraham knew that as far as child-bearing was concerned they were both “as good as dead.” However, over the course of his life he had learned God’s dealing in His life and knew that God always is faithful to keep His promises. Therefore, since this was yet another promise, he believed that God somehow would produce a son through them. Years later when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham had previous evidence on which to base his faith and obedience. Since God had promised to bless Abraham through Isaac, Isaac must live. If he killed Isaac, God would somehow raise him from the dead. Since the birth of Isaac was virtually the gift of life to and through those who were dead, God was able to fulfill His promise, even to raise Isaac from the dead.
Abraham did not need a direct word from God. Abraham’s faith was exercised much more by seeing the parallels between his present circumstances and those of his past. I must maintain that Abraham learned by analogy.91
The same principle enables us to understand how Paul and other New Testament writers could refer to the correspondence of current events to the Old Testament Scriptures. Scholars ponder how Paul could apply the command not to muzzle an ox to the payment of preachers. I believe the process is very evident. Paul interpreted that Old Testament passage literally. He concluded that the reason why oxen should not be muzzled is because God wanted to teach men that labor should be rewarded. As Paul indicates to us, God’s primary concern was not oxen, but men (1 Cor. 9:9-10). When establishing a biblical basis for his right to be paid for his ministry as an apostle, Paul could point to this passage, for the principle was clear and the analogy was easy to demonstrate.
Herein lies the difference between the way our Lord and His apostles handled the Old Testament Scriptures (particularly the Law) and the method used by the scribes, Pharisees and, in our passage, the Judaizers. The legalist comes to the Law in terms of the letter. He wants the Law to dictate life in every detail. In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord sought to point to the principle underlying the passage and its broader application.
Too many Christians today try to use the Scriptures just as the legalists did then. They want God to speak directly to them through His Word. They do not seek to learn in principle, but rather in particular. Thus, they close their eyes, turn to a text, and seek direct guidance. J. I. Packer gives us one illustration of such seeking:
Half a century ago a theological student, who later became a close and valued friend, had committed himself to start his ministry in a church in the North of England when he received a very attractive invitation to join instead a teaching institution in South Wales. He did not feel able to withdraw from his commitment, but one day he read in Isaiah 43:6 (KJV) the words, ‘I will say to the north, Give up,’ and concluded that this was God telling him that he would be providentially released from his promise and so set free to accept the second invitation. No such thing happened, however, so he went north after all, wondering what had gone wrong. Then he reread Isaiah 43:6, and noticed that it continued, “… and to the south, Keep not back”! At this point it dawned on him that he had been finding in the text meaning that was never really there, but had been reflected back on to it by the concerns which he brought to his reading of it.92
This example, and countless others equally as foolish should remind us that we need not ask God for a specific announcement of His will when He has provided us with an analogy for discerning it.
In conclusion, let me leave you with several principles from the passage which should guide and govern our lives:
(1) Hermeneutics, the science of interpreting Scripture, plays a crucial role in our Christian lives, individually and corporately. Bad methods result in bad messages. Much of the error of the Judaizers can be traced to an improper method of handling the Old Testament. In contrast, the message of the apostle is the outgrowth of his method of interpretation. There are other factors as well, but spiritualizing the Scriptures allows us to impose our own twisted thinking upon the inspired Word of God. Since the Judaizers and cults hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, their heretical interpretations are all the more dangerous, for they attribute their teachings to God. Packer puts it well when he writes,
Scripture can only rule us so far as it is understood, and it is only understood so far as it is properly interpreted. A misinterpreted Bible is a misunderstood Bible, which will lead us out of God’s way rather than in it. Interpretation must be right if biblical authority is to be real in our lives and in our churches.93
One of the quickest ways to detect a cultist is to scrutinize his hermeneutical methodology. The only way to prove falsehood from the Word of God is to twist it by using bad hermeneutics. The most recent error which has come into our church body is the result of inexcusably sloppy handling of the Word of God. Every Christian needs to develop a biblical hermeneutic for his own study and for the detection of error in others. There are no better teachers of hermeneutics than our Lord (e.g. the sermon on the mount) and his apostles. Let us learn from Paul a method, as well as a message.
(2) Preaching plays a vital role in the church because it communicates both a message and a method. When I preach, it is my sincere desire to communicate the message of a particular text or group of texts. It is also my intention to communicate a method of interpreting and applying the Scriptures. Frankly, I believe the method is just as important as the message, for if you learn the method, you will be able to utilize it yourself to gain many more insights from God’s Word.
I am dismayed at the sloppy, haphazard preaching that goes on today in the name of biblical exposition. In some cases it is because preachers are ill-equipped to teach and preach. In others it is because the preacher is simply too lazy to expend the effort required for exposition. In all too many cases, it is because churches overburden the preacher so that he has too little time and energy left to prepare for preaching. Instead of 15-20 hours of preparation time, most eek by with two or three hours. In one recent study, sermon preparation came tenth on the list of priorities of the responding pastors. Each Sunday’s sermon sounds strangely like that of the weeks before, only with a different text and title. Because the ideas presented are orthodox and supportable from some text (usually not the one expounded), shallow sermons are tolerated, because they are orthodox and delivered with sincerity and zeal.
Sound exposition is critically needed today so that God’s message and His method of interpreting and applying the Word may be modeled from the pulpit. We need to insist on it and to settle for nothing less, whether we stand behind the pulpit or sit in the pew. In all too many instances, there is no difference in the methodology of the fundamentalist preacher and the cultist.94 The only difference is that while the fundamentalist misuses the text and comes up with an orthodox message, the liberal or cultist misuses the text to teach heresy. When we evangelicals condition people to expect (and even praise as “deep”) spiritualized interpretation, we should not wonder why people in our churches turn to follow false teachers who use the same methods.
(3) Spiritualizing (allegorical) hermeneutics are either the result or the cause of failure to discern dispensational distinctions. I do not totally agree with all that is taught or practiced in the name of dispensationalism, nor do I fully disagree with what is taught by those who oppose it (e.g. amillennialism). I would submit for your consideration, however, that there was a distinct intertwining of the method (hermeneutics) and the message of the Judaizers. Those who fail to see the Law as inferior to grace (as Paul has taught in Galatians), will inevitably seek to directly relate the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g. contemporary adherence to the Mosaic Laws), or will resort to spiritualizing the Law to make it relevant. Discerning the difference between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic is the basis for Paul’s hermeneutic of interpreting the Old Testament literally and then applying it by analogy.
The error of attempting to apply all Scripture directly is all too easy to illustrate in evangelical Christianity, dispensational or not. We try to make Proverbs into promises. We believe that our giving guarantees material blessing (cf. Prov. 3:9-10). We assure godly parents that they will have godly children (Prov. 22:6). We directly relate the curses and blessings of Deuteronomy to Christians today. We quote 2 Chronicles 7:14 as though it was a promise of God to America. We look for America in prophecy. All of this is an effort to have Scripture apply to us directly, as opposed to application by analogy.
(4) God’s method of interpreting and applying Scripture requires both study and thought. I doubt any would deny that studying the Scriptures is necessary, but there is a recent error current in some circles which condemns analysis. It is put this way: “Don’t analyze it, walk it!” The inference is that applying the truth not only does not require analysis, but that it is opposed to it. I must remind you that Paul uses the word “contemplated” (Rom. 4:19) and the writer to the Hebrews uses “considered” (Heb 11:19) with regard to Abraham’s faith and obedience. In both instances, Abraham acted after he had analyzed. Both God’s works and His words invite analysis first, and then action. The reason why we fail to comprehend and apply God’s Word as we should is that we fail to pay the price of careful study (whether preachers or congregations).
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness (2 Tim. 2:15-16).
May God grant to us the determination to seek biblical methods as well as biblical messages, and may He give us the grace to do what He says.
80 J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980), pp. 20-21.
81 Burton, in his classic commentary on Galatians, spends several pages exploring the possible renderings of this expression. For those who would care to probe into the technical options, I recommend consulting his work. Earnest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971 [reprint]), pp. 253-257.
82 Ridderbos does an excellent job of explaining the application of the text in Isaiah to the “allegory” of Galatians 4. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 179.
83 Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1966), p. 28.
84 Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell, No. 1 (1758) (New York: The Swedenborg Foundation, 1956), pp. 1-2, as cited by James W. Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980), pp. 111-112. I cannot recommend Sire’s book too highly. Not only does it help us to understand the hermeneutics of the cultist, but it also instructs us to be better (students) readers of God’s Word.
87 Ramm, p. 26, citing F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 34.
89 The genius of the parables of our Lord is that they achieved two purposes. For those who had accepted our Lord and His teaching in principle, the parables helped to clarify His teaching and ministry in the particulars. The parables were, as I have previously indicated, a teaching tool designed to communicate truth. On the other hand, they were also designed to obscure the truth from those who had rejected Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Mark 3:20-30; 4:10-13). The scribes and Pharisees were looking for direct statements which would provide them with the evidence needed to put Him to death. Analogies were not direct enough, and thus the parables were to some degree evasive (at least so far as the scribes and Pharisees were concerned). Thus the parables clarified the truth for some and concealed it from others.
90 Even when the event is not historical (as in the parables), the effectiveness of the allegory is dependent upon the preciseness with which the details of the allegory correspond to the circumstances to which they are compared. The only good allegory or parable is one that is true to the truth being taught and the circumstances to which it is applied.
91 We should take note that the writer to the Hebrews intended for the analogy of these events to apply to the reader. In verse 19 he wrote, “… from which he also received him back as a type.” I understand the writer to be saying that not only should Abraham have seen by analogy that God was able to raise the dead, but that we should see the application to us. First, the raising of Isaac was a prototype of the raising of our Lord from the dead. Second, by analogy this is also an assurance of our resurrection from the dead. The writer thus wanted us to see how Abraham understood the analogy of the past, and for us to then see the analogy to our lives as well. The whole of Hebrews 11 urges us to see the analogy of the faith of men and women in the past to our own struggles and temptations.
94 I will further point out that Christians are sloppy not only in interpreting the Bible, but in interpreting non-biblical material so that it conforms to the Bible. Why is it that we feel compelled to interpret movies like “Star Wars” and “E. T.” allegorically, so that they somehow are viewed to be preaching Christ? This is simply an effort to accomodate error to truth.
In a recent message I spoke of my efforts to make a “silk purse from a sow’s ear” by trying to make a Rambler station wagon into a car it was never meant to be. I now have another confession to make: immediately after that message I bought my third Pinto. A price of $100 purchased a wrecked Pinto wagon to supply parts for my other two Pintos. It was completely dismantled and is now filed away in my garage and attic. The “remains” rest peacefully in a wrecking yard. However, so little was left that it resembled the bones of a turkey picked clean and then boiled for soup. After towing it to the wrecking yard, I unbolted the hitch, jacked up the car, removed the differential and wheels, loaded them in the truck, and drove home.
That car was thoroughly dismantled. Everything attached with screws my daughter Jenny had removed with a screwdriver. To find parts for later use, I sorted them according to kind—air conditioner, engine block, cylinder head, etc. Now there are several boxes of parts, labeled according to category such as body parts, pollution equipment, fuel, ignition and exhaust systems.
Dismantling that Pinto was necessary, as was the separating and sorting of all the parts. Although stored for future use, none of them will serve any purpose until they are placed on one of the other Pintos and put in proper relationship to all of the other parts.
Thus far in our study we have treated the Book of Galatians like that Pinto. We have been dissecting the book, looking carefully at each part, thinking about its function and contribution. But, like those car parts, they are useless until they are implemented where they function as a whole. Hopefully, we likewise now have our mental attics filled with pieces of fact and principle gleaned from our study in Galatians.
In our last lesson we concluded the second of the three major sections of the Galatian epistle. It is a good time to take inventory of what we have learned, and it may also be a fitting occasion to try to categorize some of the major components, some of the major strands of theology which Paul has woven together in this great book. In addition, we must not overlook the synthetic idea, Paul’s purpose in writing the book.
Let us then carefully reflect on the first four chapters of the Book of Galatians, taking stock of what we have learned, and preparing as well for what lies ahead in the final two chapters. We shall pursue our study by walking through the first four chapters a section at a time refreshing our memories on what we have previously studied. Then we will survey the various themes of these chapters, showing their development in the epistle. Finally, we will attempt to show how these themes fit together to convey the message which Paul intended his readers to grasp, and which the Holy Spirit has inspired and preserved for our instruction and edification as well.
Chapters 1 and 2 comprise the first division of Galatians. The focus of these chapters is on the life of the Apostle Paul. The Judaizers had repudiated both the message of salvation by grace and the messenger, the Apostle Paul. The charge against Paul was that his gospel had been contrived. They claimed that he wooed the favor of the Galatians by a kind of easy-believism, which puts aside all need to live under the Old Testament Law. Paul’s response was to survey his life, to show that his salvation as well as his ministry was divinely planned and executed, and that his independence from human manipulation was evident throughout his ministry. Having briefly surveyed the first two chapters, let us review them in more detail.
Verses 1-5 of chapter 1 introduce the epistle in the typical style of that day. Aside from identifying the author and the recipients of the letter, two significant statements are made. First, Paul was an apostle, not by man’s appointment but by God’s (1:1). Second, the goal of Christ’s intervention in history was to deliver Christians from this sinful world. These statements are critical because Paul’s apostleship is essential to the authority of his letter. He also clarifies at the very outset that whatever men may accuse his gospel of doing, its purpose is to deliver men from sin, not to promote or condone it.
Verses 6-9 spell out the Galatian problem which has occasioned the writing of this epistle. The Galatian churches have departed from the gospel they had recently received, and in so doing deserted God, who had saved them through Christ (1:6). While there was really no other gospel (1:7), those who preached another so-called “gospel” were worthy of the most severe pronouncement of anathema (1:8). This curse is repeated, and applies to all, even Paul himself (1:9). The message is greater than the messenger, and thus no messenger should dare to change it.
Verse 10 states the issue raised by the Judaizers about Paul’s gospel. They charged that he was a man-pleaser, that his gospel had departed from God’s Old Testament Law, and he thus wished to win the favor of men by offering a cheap salvation. Paul contended that his gospel was not of human origin (1:11). Verses 12-24 describe Paul’s life from before his conversion to three years after it. In his former days he was a man-pleaser, climbing the ladder of success by his zealous persecution of the church of our Lord (1:12-14). God had other plans for Paul, which began before his birth, and resulted in his conversion (1:15).
Paul was not converted through the instrumentality of any of the Jewish Christian leaders from Jerusalem (apostles), neither did he quickly seek to consult with them (1:16-17). Paul made only a brief visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, seeing only Peter and James (1:18-19). Other than this, Paul’s ministry was distant from Jerusalem, so that he was unknown to the church there, save by reputation, for which the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem rejoiced (1:20-24).
It was some fourteen years later that Paul made a second journey to Jerusalem, prompted by a divine revelation and accompanied by Barnabas and Titus (2:1-2). A private meeting with James, Peter, and John (2:2, 9) resulted in their giving Paul and his companions the right hand of fellowship, signifying that they received him as a true believer and that they also approved of his message and ministry even though it was targeted toward the Gentiles. The only stipulation made was that they continue to minister to the poor, which was the occasion for that visit (2:6-10). A contingent of legalists sought to force circumcision on Titus, but Paul refused to give in to them for the sake of the gospel, and it appears that the apostles sided with Paul in this (2:3-5).
Paul’s confrontation of Peter (2:11-21) was the most dramatic instance of Paul’s independence of men with regard to the gospel. Peter, sensing the pressure of the Jewish believers who had come to Antioch from James (Jerusalem), had withdrawn from eating with the Gentiles, sitting separately instead with the Jews. His example caused others, Barnabas included, to join him in this act, an act which Paul publicly challenged because it was a denial of the gospel. Both Jew and Gentile were equal in their sinfulness, as well as in their salvation.
Paul refuted the false and unfounded charges against him of being a people-pleaser in his gospel. He had proven himself independent of men’s acceptance and praise and had never tried to make the gospel something easy for men to accept or to practice. While Paul was independent of those whom he would have been expected to try to please (the Jerusalem apostles), they had warmly received him, stood by him in his resistance to the Judaizers, and approved of his message and ministry by giving him the “right hand of fellowship.”
The Galatians needed to learn two principle lessons from Paul’s testimony as contained in chapters 1 and 2. First, they should have recognized that the charges of the Judaizers against Paul were without substance. He had ceased to be a man-pleaser at the time of his conversion. Instead of seeking the approval of others, he had often taken the difficult course of resisting their error.
Second, the Galatians were encouraged to observe and imitate Paul’s exemplary ministry. The Galatians were too self-conscious of their reputation before the Judaizers, seeking to win their approval by submitting to circumcision and putting themselves under the Law. If the Galatians imitated Paul, they would make the gospel the standard for their own doctrine and practice, and they would strongly resist the Judaizers who were attempting to subvert the gospel. It was not Paul who was too sensitive to men’s opinion; it was the Galatian saints.
Chapters 3 and 4 compose the second major section of the book. The focus of these chapters centers on the critical differences between Paul’s gospel and that of the Judaizers. The single word “differences” aptly summarizes these two chapters, for those significant differences were overlooked by the Galatians in their folly. There were those things which were wrongly distinguished by them as well. Let us consider this section through the grid of distinctions.
In verses 1-5 of chapter 3 Paul points to the contrast between the way the Galatians attempted to live their Christian life and the way they were saved. They initially received the Spirit and experienced His power through believing faith alone, but later they foolishly set their faith aside for works.
In verses 6-14 Paul differentiates between the blessings of Abraham, which come by faith, as opposed to the cursings which result from being under the Law. Abraham was pronounced righteous on the basis of his faith, not law-works (3:6). The promises made to Abraham included the blessing of the Gentiles, who by faith are the sons of Abraham and heirs of the promise (3:7-9). In contrast, there is no promise of blessing in law-works. The Law only condemns men, since it must be kept completely and consistently. Law and faith are thus antithetical (3:10-12). The curse of the Law does not negate the promises of God to Abraham and his descendants, for that was borne by the Lord Jesus Christ (3:13-14).
In verses 15-29, Paul expounds on the distinctions of the covenant God made with Abraham and that which was made with the nation Israel through Moses. The Law of Moses which produced a curse did not set aside or modify the covenant made with Abraham which promised blessing. Three principle reasons are given for the priority of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promised blessings. First, the Abrahamic Covenant was ratified prior to the Mosaic, and thus has precedence over it (3:15, 17). Second, under the Mosaic Covenant blessing was conditional, based upon the performance of the entire nation. The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional, and blessing was to be accomplished through one person, Abraham’s seed (singular), namely Jesus Christ who Himself was God (3:16). Third, the Law of Moses was intended to be provisional and preparatory while the blessings promised Abraham were to be permanent. The Law was distinct and even inferior to the promise, yet it did not compete with or contradict the promise; rather, it prepared men for Christ and even pointed to Him (3:19-25).
While the Law made many distinctions between holy and unholy, sacred and secular, Jew and Gentile, all such distinctions are to be set aside in light of the coming of Christ and the truth of the Gospel. In Christ, the old distinctions have disappeared, for in Him there is no inferiority or superiority based on external differences such as those between Jews and Gentiles, slaves or free men, males or females. These are the very distinctions pressed by the Judaizers, for it is on the basis of such differences they considered themselves spiritually superior (3:26-29). There are now to be no such distinctions, based on the distinction between life under the Mosaic Covenant and life lived in Christ with the blessings promised to Abraham and those who are his sons by faith.
In the first 11 verses of chapter 4 Paul likens the dramatic transition from law to grace to the change from the status of a child-heir to an adult-heir who finally becomes what he was destined by his father’s will to be. While a child, the heir was no better than a slave. Remember that the Judaizers were teaching the superiority of Israel’s “good old days” under the Law as the basis for their appeal to the Gentiles to become circumcised and place themselves under the Law. Paul’s illustration indicates that superior status is given to the full son, which the Gentiles had become by faith in Christ. Even in the former condition of being under the Law, the Jew was no better than the Gentile, for both were slaves though in a different form (3:1-8). Why did the Gentiles want to turn the clock back and return to the condition of bondage under the Law when they were set free in Christ (4:9-11)?
There is a further contrast drawn. The way Paul had originally been received differed from the way the Galatians later shunned him (4:12-20). On his first visit he had received the warmest reception, even though his physical infirmity made him repulsive. Later he was shunned as though he had the plague. Only one explanation existed. Paul had not changed in his love for them—they had changed their attitude toward him. The change came in their rejection of Paul’s gospel. It was Paul’s gospel that once bound them together in the most intimate and fervent love. After rejecting his gospel, their intimacy was hindered. On the basis of the relationship they had once experienced, Paul appealed to them as a heartbroken mother, to return to his gospel and to him.
Verses 21-31 act as a conclusion to this section. Paul illustrates the difference between the two covenants by comparing them with the two wives of Abraham and their sons. Paul leads us to the conclusion that the fleshly sons of Abraham are not heirs of the promise, but only those who are sons by faith. In Paul’s analogy, the Judaizers were justified in calling themselves “sons of Abraham,” but not in thinking they were heirs of the promise. Indeed they sought to earn God’s blessings by the works of the flesh, rather than by trusting in God for His righteousness provided by grace. Only those who, like Abraham, are men of faith, are true sons of Abraham and thus heirs of the blessings which were promised through Abraham’s seed. The friction between the Jewish saints and the Gentile believers was really persecution, stemming from the jealousy of the Jews who resisted their (Israel’s) blessings being bestowed on the Gentiles. The only solution was for the Galatian churches to cast out the Judaizers, just as Sarah insisted that Abraham cast out Hagar and her son.
In no uncertain terms, chapters 3 and 4 prove not only the superiority but the priority of grace over law. To follow the Judaizers in placing oneself under the Law was to turn from the blessings of the promise through faith to the cursing of the Law.
There are many themes which could be pursued by the student of Galatians 1-4. There is, however, one overriding theme which we dare not overlook, for I believe that it is the principle purpose of this epistle. These chapters focus on the grace of God as evident in the gospel. The grace of God may be seen as a fundamental principle of the Christian life and the fundamental problem so far as the Galatian churches were concerned. Let me summarize some of the ways which Paul emphasizes the grace of God in these first four chapters.
(1) Grace is the message and the means of salvation. In Galatians 1:15, Paul spoke of God calling him “through His grace.” Paul realized that it was grace alone which sought and saved him. How could he, a persecutor of Christ and His church, possibly deserve salvation? The Galatians too were “called by the grace of Christ” (1:6). Salvation is a matter of pure grace, nothing more, nothing less.
(2) Grace is the means of the Christian’s sanctification. The thrust of Paul’s argument in the first 5 verses of chapter 3 is that the Galatian Christians have begun by faith and have turned to works. The assumption of the argument is that one is sanctified on the same basis that he is saved—by grace (cf. Col. 2:6). On the basis of this principle Peter says, “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18a). This is also why Paul says that receiving circumcision as a law-work is to have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). Grace is the way in which God has chosen to deal with sinful men. Sinful men cannot earn righteousness in God’s sight; they can only receive His righteousness by grace, through faith in Christ. It is also in this same grace that we stand (Rom. 5:2).
(3) Grace is the motive and the means for the Christian’s service. When Paul speaks of his ministry, which was approved by Peter, James, and John (Gal. 2:9), he refers to it as “the grace that had been given to me.” Ministry, like salvation and sanctification, is a matter of grace. It is not a coincidence that the Greek word for spiritual gifts is a derivative of the term for grace. This is why we find statements in Scripture like these:
And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly … (Rom. 12:6a).
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:7).
As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Pet. 4:10).
(4) The grace of God in the gospel is the standard for all teaching and conduct. The gospel which Paul first preached was the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. The “different gospel” taught by the Judaizers was a departure from God’s grace to works. Submission to circumcision as a law-work was to fall from grace (Gal. 5:4). Paul strongly reacted to such a departure, saying that no matter who it might be, including himself, the one who teaches salvation through any means other than grace is accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
While Peter’s teaching was orthodox, his practice departed from the grace of God in the gospel when he removed himself from the table of Gentile believers. Paul’s strong reaction and rebuke was due to the fact that this behavior was inconsistent with the gospel. The grace of God in the gospel was the standard by which Paul measured Peter’s actions.
(5) Grace obliterates distinctions of superiority. The gospel removes distinctions, such as those between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, male and female (Gal. 3:28). Although not clearly stated, it is implied that grace removes these distinctions. Let me explain.
If men are lost apart from God’s grace, they are equally lost. It doesn’t matter whether one is an unbelieving Jew or an unbelieving Gentile, they are equally lost in that both will spend eternity apart from Christ. Both the Christian Jew and the Christian Gentile have an equal standing before God, righteous in His sight, since the righteousness of each is the same—the righteousness of Christ, imputed to the believer. Because grace is unmerited favor, the merits of one man (as man views merit) do not give him any superior standing before God because all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6).
The same principle applies to the matter of spiritual gifts. In Corinth, as in virtually all churches today, some spiritual gifts were more highly regarded than others. The result was that those who possessed the more desirable gifts were esteemed to be more spiritual than the others. We have already seen that spiritual gifts are literally “graces.” God is the sovereign giver of all gifts, every outworking is the result of His power (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-6). Therefore, there is absolutely no basis for boasting, except in the Lord, who works all in all. Grace removes all ground for superiority and boasting.
It is no wonder that the Judaizers were so opposed to grace. Grace removes the basis for distinctions and thus for a spiritual hierarchy. Since the Judaizers regarded Jewishness (living under the Law) to be superior to Gentileness (not living under the Law), they regarded themselves as superior to the Gentile Christians. Departing from grace, the Galatian Christians were inclined to accept the superiority of those under the Law and put themselves under the same bondage. Wherever there is spiritual pride, there is likely some kind of illegitimate discrimination, and wherever there is such discrimination, grace has been set aside. Grace never produces pride, but grateful humility.
(6) Grace is the key to unlocking the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul was a prisoner of God’s grace. Having been saved by grace, Paul was now able to look at the Old Testament Law in an entirely new light. Before his conversion, the Law was Paul’s prooftext for torturing and killing Christians. After his conversion, Paul became an ambassador of Christ, now having a graciousness and a compassion which he had never manifested before.
Grace provided Paul with an entirely new perspective for studying the Old Testament Law. Once he focused only upon the Mosaic Covenant, thinking in terms of rules, restrictions, and human effort. After conversion Paul viewed the Mosaic Covenant in terms of the earlier and greater Abrahamic Covenant, which promises blessings instead of the curse of the Law.
It is unfortunately true that one can find texts to justify almost any thesis if one so desires. Once Paul became the prisoner of God’s grace, he was able to see grace throughout the Old Testament. For those who have not experienced God’s grace, the severity of the Law is their focal point. Grace gives one a new perspective in studying the Bible.
(7) Grace is not just a perspective on the Law, but a perspective on life. Paul’s life and ministry was dominated by the grace of God as manifested first and foremost in the gospel. His ministry was marked by grace, not only in his message but in his methods. Is it any wonder that Paul often refused remuneration for preaching the gospel, even though this was his right (cf. 1 Cor. 9)? Grace that is freely received is freely given.
What one is determines what one sees. Grace is an orientation, an outlook on life. Paul was so captivated by the grace of God it was the theme of his life and ministry. That is why Paul could smell a legalist a mile away. That is also why Paul so quickly and decisively responded to a departure from grace.
It is my prayer that you and I will become prisoners of grace, preoccupied by it. Unfortunately, too many preachers have guilt and condemnation as their theme. That was the function of the Law. While a necessary function, it should be overcome and overshadowed by the grace of God. You can only enter into this grace orientation by first receiving the grace of God in Christ Jesus, the grace which led Christ to bear your punishment and to provide you with His righteousness in place of your rags of sin. If you have never experienced the grace of God in the gospel by personal salvation, I pray that you will today, this very hour. If you have experienced this grace, I pray that you will grow in grace and not depart from it by some system of human works, such as that propagated by the Judaizers and a host of their kind today.
A few years ago I was asked to visit an elderly couple who desired to be baptized in the church where I served. I went to visit them to discuss this matter, as I always do, and as we also do as a church. On the door was a sign printed in five languages. Although I did not understand the languages, I discerned that “Keep Out” was the essence of the message. After knocking I was cordially invited in and after some small talk, I pursued to the purpose of my visit. “Tell me why you want to be baptized,” I inquired. “Well,” the husband responded, “you see my wife and I are getting along in years. We have done nearly everything we can think of to make certain that we are going to heaven, but we have not yet been baptized. We thought that we would not leave any stone unturned, and so we would like your church to baptize us.”
Needless to say, after trying to make a clear presentation of the gospel, I had to inform this couple that I could not baptize them under such circumstances. To them, baptism was a minor inconvenience but well worth the effort if there was any chance that it would enhance their spiritual well-being.
The Galatian Christians looked at circumcision in a similar light. They viewed it as a ritualistic act, which although painful and inconvenient, was a small price to pay to be more spiritual. There are, of course, significant differences between the circumstances in the Galatian churches of Paul’s day and the situation of this couple. The Galatian saints were saved and wanted only to enhance their spiritual standing. The couple with whom I spoke were not saved, and were trying to earn salvation by the “work” of baptism. Furthermore, baptism is not associated with additional duties and obligations. This couple would be no better off, nor any worse off, for having been baptized.
On the contrary, circumcision for the Galatians carried with it far-reaching consequences which they did not seem to understand. They did not realize that circumcision implied certain binding obligations. It was Paul’s intention in this passage to point out the consequences of circumcision, showing them the high cost. They had everything to lose by it and nothing to gain.
I think we all recognize that circumcision is not an issue for the Christian today. We have our male children circumcised as a cultural practice. (In fact, it appears that the trend may even be reversing.) Falling back into legalism is a particularly grave danger, since it is not signaled by any particular “rite” such as circumcision served for the Galatians. For this reason, we must pay all the more attention to the warning of the apostle.
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 (Gal. 5:1, NIV).
Perhaps the finest and most concise summary of the message of this epistle is found in verse 1 of chapter 5. This verse also serves as a transition to the third and final section of the letter. It is an apt conclusion to the argument of chapters 3 and 4, where Paul has shown the superiority of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Mosaic Law and thus of grace to law. Since the Law leads only to bondage, and grace to freedom, it is foolish to seek to return to bondage by placing oneself under the Mosaic Law. In addition, this verse leads us to the goal of the gospel—liberty. Notice that a very similar statement is found in verse 13: “You, my brothers, were called to be free” (NIV). In chapters 1 and 2, Paul has defended himself against the charges leveled against his integrity and authority as an apostle. In chapters 3 and 4, Paul has defended his gospel as that which has historical and theological priority over that of law—works. Paul explains the goal of the gospel in chapters 5 and 6 as true liberty, which includes not only liberty from the Law but also from the bondage of sin.
Because of the crucial importance of verse 1, let us focus our attention on the implications of four of its phrases which deal with the Galatian problem.
The expression “for freedom”95 indicates the goal of the redemptive work of Christ, or, as I have suggested by the message title, “the goal of the gospel.” Christ freed us in order that we might be free. Bondage is the opposite of freedom, and thus since the Law produces bondage, living under it is inconsistent with the gospel. “Stand firm” indicates the diligence and commitment required to maintain our freedom. We have already seen that bondage is the natural condition of men, whether Jew or Gentile (3:10-11, 22-23; 4:3, 8-9, 21-31). Unless we diligently guard our liberty, we will be drawn back into bondage. Paul’s words here help me to understand why spiritual apathy is taken so seriously in the Word of God (cf. Rev. 3:14-22).
“Do not let yourselves be burdened” implies that there is personal accountability for falling back into bondage. It is neither entirely an unconscious choice, nor is such a choice the fault of another. We fall back into bondage because we allow ourselves to do so (cf. Heb. 2:1). Finally, “again” is Paul’s way of equating the evil of the Galatians’ former bondage in their pagan beliefs and practices (cf. Gal. 4:8; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 12:2) with the bondage to which they would succumb “under the Law.” This was a shocking statement to the Jew whose attitude is revealed in Galatians 2:15: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.” Nevertheless, Paul teaches that to turn from grace results in bondage. Whether the brand of bondage is Jewish or Gentile is of little consequence.
Let me illustrate how bondage under the Law can be almost synonymous (indicated by the word “again”) with bondage under paganism. Suppose that a European nation was once ruled by a cruel, iron-fisted dictator, then overtaken by Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and later “liberated” by Russian Communism. By whatever name, each regime was merely another form of bondage. Thus, Paul can say that to follow the teaching of the Judaizers was to return “again” to bondage, not precisely the same bondage, but bondage nonetheless.
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
The Judaizers had busily been at work among the Gentile Galatian churches. They preached a different gospel, claiming a superior spiritual status for all who would live under the Law. Paul’s words suggest that most (if not all) of the Galatian saints had not made a decision to follow the Judaizers when he wrote the epistle. The one issue, one act, which served as a touchstone for the Judaizers and a kind of watershed for the Galatians was circumcision. Paul focuses on this issue in verses 2-6.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Only at this point in the epistle does Paul directly confront the issue of circumcision,96 preferring to deal with the error of the Judaizers in principle. In very practical terms, Paul points out several fundamental truths concerning circumcision which would give the Galatian saints pause for thought.
(1) Circumcision was commanded (or at least commended) by the Judaizers and contemplated by the Galatian saints. From the account in Acts 15 (vv. 1, 5) and chapter 2 of this epistle, we know that circumcision was a fundamental issue for the Judaizers. The impression which we gain from the context is that some of the saints were considering circumcision, but most, at least, had not yet committed themselves. Paul is thus addressing circumcision as an imminent decision which his readers must make.
(2) Submitting to circumcision was an extremely serious error. There is a solemnity to Paul’s teaching in these verses which is indicated immediately in the words of verse 2, “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you …” Paul indicates that submitting to circumcision is a far more serious issue than the Galatian Christians perceive it to be. His introductory words alert them to the urgency of the issue.
What Paul’s introduction implies, his subsequent words make clear. The seriousness of the error is indicated by its consequences. We thus do well to take Paul’s words at full force when he writes, “if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” (v. 2) and again, “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (v. 4).
I am personally convinced that the Scriptures teach the eternal security of the believer, and I do not believe this passage teaches otherwise. Nevertheless, out of a sincere desire to be true to the doctrine of eternal security, some downplayed the sobering impact of these words on the reader, which I believe Paul meant them to have. Paul is trying to shock his readers into a realization of the seriousness of submitting to circumcision which they were contemplating.97 Since the implications of circumcision are pursued in my next point, I will only mention here that circumcision was a serious error in Paul’s estimation.
(3) Seeking circumcision was as serious an error as submitting to it. It is perhaps a hair-splitting matter, but I think it worthwhile to suggest that Paul is rebuking his readers for even contemplating circumcision. Just as an adulterous thought is adultery (Matt. 5:27-28), so deliberating about circumcision is something which distressed Paul. There is a grave possibility of sinning by submitting to circumcision, but there is the present evil of contemplating it.
(4) Circumcision is a serious sin because it puts one back under the Law and thus makes righteousness a matter not of faith, but works. In verse 3 Paul reminds his readers of a fact which the Judaizers had no doubt avoided to mention: circumcision is the rite which testifies to one’s submission to the Old Testament Law. When a Gentile wished to become a Jewish proselyte, he submitted to the rite of circumcision. The Judaizers may not have clearly spelled out the implications of circumcision, but Paul did. One who is circumcised is under obligation to keep the whole Law. A correlation is that the one who is circumcised is thus seeking to establish his righteousness before God by law-keeping and no longer by faith. For this reason Paul can say they have “been severed from Christ” and “have fallen from grace” (v. 4). Circumcision signified a change in the basis of one’s righteousness.
I do not believe that Paul is teaching that the Galatian Christian who submitted to circumcision immediately lost his salvation. He is stressing the implications of circumcision. Circumcision is an acknowledgment that one is placing himself under Law, thereby turning from grace, and setting aside the work of Christ. Paul did not believe the Galatians wanted to enslave themselves under the Law, so he set forth the seriousness of the implications of circumcision.
A week or two ago I attended a luncheon, which was intended to promote a Christian short wave radio network. I think it is a wonderful idea and it was mentioned that a short wave radio was available for each person who attended the meeting. As I picked one up, the fellow who was with me pointed out that the radios were “tokens of appreciation” for all who contributed $500 or more. I quickly returned the radio. I did not understand all that was involved in accepting a radio, just as the Galatians did not comprehend all that was involved in submitting to circumcision. However, when the implications of receiving a radio were made clear, I responded differently. In like manner, Paul hoped that the Galatians would respond negatively to circumcision.
(5) Circumcision betrayed a complete reversal of crucial Christian doctrines. Verses 5 and 6 very forcefully conclude Paul’s arguments against submitting to circumcision. He points out three characteristics of Christian faith and practice which directly oppose the view of the Judaizers. These decisive differences are addressed in the remainder of this epistle, so we will only briefly discuss them in this lesson.
Faith works by means of the Spirit (v. 5). The religion of the Judaizers was not of God, and thus was not empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God works through men of faith, empowering them to live lives which are acceptable in God’s sight.
Faith hopes for ultimate and final righteousness (v. 5). The Judaizers promised complete righteousness in ones’ earthly life, beginning with circumcision and achieved with obedience to the Law. Paul spoke of righteousness coming in completeness in the age to come (cf. 1:4), rather than in the present age. Righteousness, of course, should be manifested in our lives in the present, but not sinlessness. Complete righteousness will be ours when Christ comes to take us from this evil age. The Judaizers looked for full righteousness in the present, Paul, in the future.
Faith works through love (v. 6). The Judaizers believed that righteousness was displayed in outward, physical forms. The scribes and Pharisees before them viewed righteousness also as that which is external (cf. Matt. 6:1-18). The faith of the true believer is manifested through love, a quality obviously lacking in the legalist. The characteristics by which we know God’s people are the “fruit of the Spirit,” beginning with love (cf. Gal. 5:22).
7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10 I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12 Would that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
In verse 7 Paul’s attention turns from the arguments against circumcision to the advocates of circumcision. He begins in verse 7 by pointing out the lamentable fact that while the Galatian saints had once “run well,” they were no longer doing so. They had somehow been hindered from their obedience to the truth. Verse 8 denies that the source of their change for the worse was from God. This is important, for when Christians turn from truth to error they almost always try to give God the credit. Few fall into error initially by a decision to be disobedient. Rather, they are deceived and thus attempt to show that they have seen a new truth and that their sins are sanctioned by God. Paul gives no time for such excuses. They had turned from the truth, and God was not the author of their error. Instead, their change had come from another source.
It is important to understand that “persuasion” is probably the most effective weapon of the deceiver in turning Christians from truth to error. It would seem that Paul identified the influence of the Judaizers as the leading cause of the Galatian misconception. When the persuasive genius of the Judaizers was combined with the gullibility of the Galatians, error resulted.
In Galatians, as elsewhere, Paul contrasts his straightforwardness in proclaiming the truth of God’s Word with the persuasive techniques of the pagans and false teachers (cf. Gal. 3:1; Eph. 4:15; 5:6; Col. 2:4, 8; 1 Cor. 1:17; 2:1-5; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2). The “con artist” always peddles his goods to those who see his wares as a wise acquisition. Whether peddling stolen merchandise in some dark alley or peddling a false gospel, the methods are nearly identical. It is no wonder that an evil way of life is portrayed in the Book of Proverbs as a prostitute selling her wares. The Galatian saints have been persuaded, or to put it more crassly, they have been “conned.”
Verse 9 contains what may have been a well-known proverb, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” We find the same expression in 1 Corinthians 5:6, where Paul uses it to convey how letting a man’s moral sin go unchallenged was a corrupting influence on the entire church. The use of this proverb propounds the same principle: what seems to be a little thing can do a lot of damage. Paul may have two ideas in mind here. First, he may be saying that while there is perhaps only one false teacher among them, he can do a great deal of damage. Second, he may mean that what this teacher is peddling as a minor correction to Paul’s teaching is really a corruption of the gospel. In either of these two ideas, we can see that Paul emphasized what the false Judaizers (and it would seem, the Galatian saints) minimized. Paul sought to show them how much damage a seemingly little thing can do.
In verse 10 we find a strong affirmation of Paul’s confidence in the midst of these distressing circumstances. We need to understand the nature and the basis of Paul’s confidence. First, Paul is confident concerning the final decision of the Galatian Christians. He says that he is assured that they will not adopt a different view, or, we could say, a “different gospel.” Second, Paul is confident that God will deal justly with those Judaizers98 who had caused so much trouble in the Galatian churches.
The source of Paul’s confidence is of critical importance. Paul’s assurance rests in the Lord. Paul is confident of the ultimate decision and destiny of the Galatian saints, for it is God who has called them, and God is faithful to fulfill His purposes. Paul writes of his assurance to the Philippians: “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). Likewise, Paul can be confident that God will deal in justice with those who lead others astray: “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:19; cf. 2 Peter 2).
Verse 11 is somewhat puzzling in some of its particulars, but the principle seems to be clear. Apparently the Judaizers were teaching that Paul himself advocated circumcision. They might have seen, for example, the circumcision of Timothy as support for their case (cf. Acts 16:3). Paul refutes this claim by pointing out that he was still being persecuted. He was ridiculed because he did not preach circumcision. If he continued to preach circumcision, as he had done prior to his salvation, he would not be persecuted. The fact that he was still persecuted proved that he did not, as the Judaizers implied or stated, preach circumcision.
To preach circumcision was to set aside the cross and its offense to the Jew (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 3:1). There was nothing more repulsive to the Jew than to think of Messiah suffering on a cross. No wonder Peter rebuked our Lord for talking of such a thing (cf. Matt. 16:13-23). On an individual basis, the cross is an offense to human pride. If I must believe in the death of Messiah on a Roman cross, a death suffered in my place, then I must also admit that I deserved such a death (cp. Gal. 2:15-21). The cross is the measure of my sin and of my utter inability to be justified in God’s sight by my own deeds. To cease to preach circumcision (which was promoted by the Judaizers as a means of being righteous) was to seek to minimize the offense of the cross. This was precisely why the Judaizers so aggressively promoted circumcision (cf. Gal. 6:12).
Verse 12 is looked upon by some as a crude piece of sarcasm. This is hardly the case. Paul’s purpose is to press the error of the Judaizers to its illogical and unacceptable conclusion. The Judaizers had emphasized circumcision more than the Old Testament Law had. The mentality of the Judaizers was that the cutting off of a little flesh was commendable and pleasing in God’s sight. In short, they taught that circumcision contributed to a man’s righteousness. If this were really true, Paul queries, then why not press the matter even further? If cutting off a little flesh is good, cutting off much flesh is even better. Why not be so pious as to castrate oneself?
Now this is a bit extreme for even the Judaizer. First, the Old Testament Law forbade a castrated man from entering the assembly of the Lord (Deut. 23:1). No Jew would ever have considered going this far. In addition, well known to the Galatian saints was the pagan ritual of the priests of Cybele in which they castrated themselves. To go to this extent was to imitate the heathen. From the Old Testament Scriptures and contemporary culture, the Galatians would recognize castration as too extreme, and yet it was the logical extension of their doctrine. As this illustration graphically reveals, the horrifying thought of castration was intended to show the Galatians that the Judaizers had gone too far.
There are several levels of application which this passage has for Christians in our day and age. Let us conclude by a consideration of the application of the text to our lives.
(1) Our passage condemns a return to the Old Testament Law as our rule of life. The first level of application is the most direct. While the Old Testament provides a standard for righteousness, it does not provide us with the means of meeting this standard. In the day of the Galatian saints, circumcision was a commitment to return to the rule of the Law. For this reason, circumcision was condemned. Today, while circumcision does not have the same implications for Gentile Christians, there are still those who would have us return to living under the Old Testament Law as the Judaizers taught. We must beware of any return to the Law in this sense.
Let me hasten to say that this principle does not cast the Old Testament aside. Both our Lord and the New Testament writers relied heavily on the Old Testament, including the Law. We have much to learn from the Law, but we dare not turn back the clock and attempt to live under the Law as men did before the cross.
We must remember that Paul is not trying to give a full exposition on the merits and use of the Old Testament Law in Galatians—he is attempting to refute a serious error which sought to misuse the Law. We must always interpret Paul’s words in this book in the light of his argument. I would encourage each reader to engage in a fuller study of the merits of the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law, so long as they distinguish between the Law as a means of edification and the Law as a means of justification (or sanctification).
(2) This text condemns any teaching which portrays a particular act as producing in the believer a “quantum leap” in his spiritual status. Some today teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. To those who hold this doctrine, salvation cannot be obtained other than by means of baptism. Apart from changing the rite from circumcision to baptism, this teaching does not differ from that of the Judaizers (cf. Acts 15:1,5). There are other “rites” or “rituals” which fall into this same category, I believe, including the experiences related to the “second blessing.” Let us beware of viewing some “rite” as the passageway into a higher spiritual standing.
(3) Our passage provides us with some very helpful principles for correcting an erring brother. We know from other texts that rebuke is the obligation of the Christian (cf. Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5; Gal. 6:1-2). Paul’s actions give us several guidelines for correction. First, we learn that rebuke should not be delayed. Paul did not wait until the Galatians had submitted to circumcision; he warned them before such an error occurred. If it is better to “keep out” of sin than to “get out,” correction should not be delayed. Second, we learn that godly correction points out the implications and consequences of one’s actions. In Proverbs we are told that the wise man will consider the consequences of his deeds and will act according to wisdom (cf. Prov. 22:3). Paul thus points out the consequences of following the doctrine of the Judaizers. Third, correction never minimizes the seriousness of sin. We often tend to play down the seriousness of sin, but Paul emphasized it. There is grave danger in following false doctrine; Paul was emphatic on this point. Fourth, we learn from Paul to correct in confidence. He emphasized the foolishness of following the Judaizers (e.g. 3:1) and the seriousness of submitting to circumcision, and yet he was not fearful of failing in his task. Paul’s assurance was based in the Lord, and he knew that the God of the Galatians would finish the good work He had started in them.
(4) This passage instructs us about the value of foresight. We have seen how the previous chapters in Galatians looked backward, while in chapter 5 Paul begins to look ahead. There are several ways in which looking forward can and should be adopted by the Christian. First, we should exercise foresight in the goals which God has for our lives. Far too often Christians are in a dither to know God’s will for them in some particular area and have forgotten the central focus of God’s will for them in general. God’s will for us is that we be holy and sanctified (cf. 1 Thes. 4:3). Paul speaks of this goal particularly in respect to our sexual purity. If we are conscious of this broad goal, we need not agonize about God’s will on a particular matter when the outcome would be immorality. I personally believe that Christians in this generation have become obsessed with the particulars, because they have neglected the principles; we have become fascinated with guidance because we have lost sight of our goals. If our text stresses anything, it is that God’s goals for our lives should serve as guideposts. If God had called the Galatians for liberty, why would He possibly lead them into bondage again?
A second way of looking ahead is to consider the implications of our actions. Paul saw that Peter’s actions were a denial of the gospel and thus he rebuked him (Gal. 2:11-21). Paul saw that the Galatians’ contemplated action (circumcision) was also a departure from the gospel and from the freedom it was intended to produce. It is very important that we consider the implications of our actions. This is foresight.
Perhaps you have never considered the eternal implication of your response to Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that all men (this includes you) are sinners, deserving and destined to eternal separation from Him in hell. The Bible also teaches that God has provided men with a solution to their problem of sin and its consequence of death. Jesus Christ, God’s sinless Son, came to the earth, lived a perfect life, and died on a Roman cross. He did this in our place, so that everyone who accepts Him has already died to sin and its consequences, and may thus be accepted by God in Christ’s righteousness. To neglect this provision is to commit the most serious error of all and to await eternal judgment. May God enable you to trust in His Son, even now.
For those of us who are saved, may God enable us to consider the implications for our lives of the goals which God has for us, and may we also consider the implications of our actions in the light of these goals.
95 There are various ways in which the original text could be rendered. I have followed that chosen by the translators of the NIV. For an extensive summary of the options and technical problems involved, cf. Earnest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971 [reprint]), pp. 270-272.
96 Circumcision was mentioned in chapter 2 where the Judaizers demanded that Titus be circumcised, and this does somewhat pave the way for Paul’s direct attack here.
97 Concerning verse 2, Burton writes, “The form of the conditional clause …, referring to a future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will be circumcised is still pending.” Burton, p. 273.
98 In verse 10 Paul speaks of the false teacher or teachers as “the one who is disturbing you” and “whoever he is.” One might get the impression that there is but one false teacher and that Paul didn’t know his name. This is possible, but it hardly seems likely. Paul had been aware of this problem for a time and he seemed to know what was going on in churches, even though he was absent (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-12; Phil. 4:2-3). Paul may thus be avoiding mentioning the names of those involved, for there may be some who are unknown to him. Let the false teachers be discerned by their doctrine and their deeds. “Whoever he is” may speak of the individual’s rank or position, not of his identity. In effect, Paul would be saying, “God will deal with this person in judgment, no matter how high his position, nor how highly he is esteemed by others.” There may be an additional nuance to the expression “whoever he is,” which very nicely fits the context of the passage. If Paul’s confidence is in the Lord, who will judge false teachers, then Paul does not need to know who the individual(s) is.
World War II provided us with some tragic illustrations of theological truth. When Nazi Germany attacked Poland the battle was essentially won within a week and was virtually over in a month. Winston Churchill described the valiant effort of the poorly armed Poles:
They were heavily outclassed in artillery, and had but a single armoured brigade to meet the nine German Panzers, as they were already called. Their horse cavalry, of which they had twelve brigades, charged valiantly against the swarming tanks and armoured cars, but could not harm them with their swords and lances.99
Shirer sensed this same futility when he wrote:
Horses against tanks! The cavalryman’s long lance against the tank’s long cannon! Brave and valiant and foolhardy though they were, the Poles were simply overwhelmed by the German onslaught. This was their—and the world’s— first experience of the blitzkrieg: the sudden surprise attack; the fighter planes and bombers roaring overhead, reconnoitering, attacking, spreading flame and terror; the Stukas screaming as they dove; the tanks, whole divisions of them, breaking through and thrusting forward thirty or forty miles a day; self-propelled, rapid-firing heavy guns rolling forty miles an hour down even the rutty Polish roads; the incredible speed of even the infantry, of the whole vast army of a million and a half men on motorized wheels, directed and co-ordinated through a maze of electronic communications consisting of intricate radio, telephone and telegraphic networks. This was a monstrous mechanized juggernaut such as the earth had never seen. … Within forty-eight hours the Polish Air Force was destroyed. … In one week the Polish Army had been vanquished.100
The victory of Germany over Poland can be principally explained by their superiority in weapons. Shirer described the rapid arms buildup of the Third Reich:
… the Army of the Third Reich had jumped from seven to fifty-one divisions in just four years. Among them were five heavy armored divisions and four light ones, a “modern battle cavalry” such as no other nation possessed. The Navy had built up from practically nothing. … From absolutely nothing, the Luftwaffe had built up a force of twenty-one squadrons with a personnel of 260,000 men. The armament industry, General Thomas said, was already producing more than it had during the peak of the last war and its output in most fields far exceeded that of any other country. In fact, total German rearmament, the General declared, was “probably unique in the world.”101
The weapons of Germany’s warfare played a significant part in the victories she won on the battlefield. One can only shudder at what might have happened if German technology had produced some of the weapons which were still in the developmental stages.
Having described the tremendous buildup of military weapons, Shirer makes a very interesting comment about the possibility of German victory: “Formidable as German military power was becoming at the beginning of the summer of 1939, the prospect of success in the war which Hitler was planning for the early fall depended on what kind of a war it was.”102
Allow me to paraphrase and apply Shirer’s words to our passage in Galatians 5: the kind of war which is waged determines the success of the weapons employed. This same principle explains the failure of the legalism of the Judaizers to subdue the sins of the pagan Gentiles. The weapon of the Law was ineffective because of the nature of the war. In Ephesians 6, Paul demonstrates the need for spiritual weapons, based upon the fact that we are engaged in a spiritual warfare. Galatians 5 also describes a spiritual warfare, but it is a war within the soul of the saint, rather than the external war found in Ephesians. In Ephesians 6, spiritual weapons are needed because of the fallen angelic forces who are resisting the saints. In Galatians 5, grace is needed because of the fallen nature which is still within us, waging war against the Spirit.
The Judaizers erred in that they were attempting to fight the spiritual war with the weapons of the flesh. They erroneously believed that the only way to overcome the evils of the heathen society of that day was to arm themselves with the Old Testament Law. To seek to subdue sin by means of the flesh is like trying to put out a grease fire with water—it only makes matters worse. Paul’s argument in our text is intended to show that the nature of the spiritual war which is being waged within the saint is such that the Law promotes sin, while grace alone prevents it.
The purpose of this message is to expound this passage as a whole, especially in the light of the context. We shall then seek to find its application to our own lives. The next message will cover the same passage, focusing on the principles regarding the spiritual life. We will then survey some of the major views of the spiritual life in contemporary evangelism and evaluate them in the light of Scripture.
The context of our passage is crucial to our understanding of Paul’s words. Chapter 5 begins a new section. Chapters 1 and 2 are primarily written as a defense of Paul’s apostleship and his authority. Chapters 3 and 4 are intended to prove the superiority and priority of grace over the Law by developing the priority and superiority of the Abrahamic Covenant to the Mosaic. Paul shows in chapters 3 and 4 that the Law cannot produce righteousness, while chapters 5 and 6 show how righteousness is produced by grace through the Holy Spirit.
The first 12 verses of chapter 5 concentrate on the subject of freedom, the goal of our salvation (cf. 5:1). To be circumcised was to submit oneself to the Old Testament Law, thus exchanging freedom for bondage. In verses 13 and following, the goal of this freedom in Christ is expounded. Galatians 5:1-12 explains what the Christian is free from, and the remainder of the chapter expounds on what the Christian is free for.
If the broad context is that of the freedom of the Christian, the narrower context is that of the contention and strife which exists within the Galatian churches. You will notice that our passage is encircled, as it were, by strife and contention. In verse 15 we learn that the Galatian saints were “biting and devouring” each other. In verse 26, there is a final exhortation not to “become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.” The freedom which was granted at salvation was a freedom from servitude to servanthood. The Galatian saints were made free to serve one another. The practical problem was that they were so divided by friction and strife that serving one another was greatly hindered. The situation is similar to having a beautiful and expensive automobile, with a lifetime supply of gasoline, but without any oil for lubrication. Even the most precision engine (or perhaps I should say, especially the most precision engine) cannot function without oil. The unity and harmony of the Galatian churches was disrupted by strife.
Paul claims that such strife was the result of walking in the flesh, rather than of walking in the Spirit. Walking in the flesh was the direct result of the Galatians’ turning to another gospel, a gospel which added law-keeping to grace. Paul seeks to solve the practical problem of disunity by exposing its roots: legalism. He further attempts to convince his readers that legalism will only promote sin, rather than prevent it, because of the war which is being waged within the soul.
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.
Initially I viewed verses 13-15 as somewhat incidental, compared to the more important truths of “walking in the Spirit.”103 These verses, however, are vital to understanding the realm in which “walking in the Spirit” is to take place. Paul is not discussing spirituality in a vacuum, but in a very practical context as described in verses 13-15.
For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another.104
Paul begins chapter 5 with the words, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free.” Verse 13 takes up the same theme but in a more precise way. Paul uses the term “only” to introduce a more restrictive view of the purpose of our freedom. The Judaizers reacted to Paul’s teaching because they feared that freedom would lead to license. A brief description of the evils of the Gentile world will help you understand the fears of the Judaizers.
The sexual life of the Graeco-Roman world in NT times was a lawless chaos. J. J. Chapman, describing the time in which Lucian lived, in the first half of the second century, writes: “Lucian lived in an age when shame seems to have vanished from the earth.” Demosthenes writes … “We keep mistresses for pleasure, concubines for the day-to-day needs of the body, but we have wives in order to produce children legitimately and to have a trustworthy guardian of our homes” (Against Neaera, quoted, Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 573 B). … It is hardly possible to mention a great Greek figure who had not his hetaira, his mistress, and often these mistresses were the most beautiful and the most cultured women of their day. Alexander the Great had his Thais, … Aristotle had his Herpyllia, Plato his Archeaenassa, Pericles his Aspasia, Sophocles his Archippe. … “Chastity is simply a proof of ugliness” (Seneca, On Benefits 3.16.1-3). Innocence, says Seneca, is not rare, it is non-existent (On Anger 2,8). Juvenal paints the picture of the Roman woman passing the altar of Modesty with a cynical smile (Juvenal, Satires 6.308). “The greater the infamy, the wilder the delight,” said Tacitus (Tacitus, Annals 11.26).105
This kind of depravity I would call “red-blooded Gentile immorality.” The unnatural vices, Barclay writes, were running rampant:
Still worse was the unnatural vice which was rampant. It began in the imperial household. Caligula notoriously lived in habitual incest with his sister Drusilla, and the lust of Nero did not even spare his mother Agrippina (Suetonius, Caligula 34; Nero 28).106
The sin of homosexuality was even more prevalent in Paul’s day than it is today.
From the highest to the lowest society was riddled with homosexuality. This was a vice which Rome learned from Greece. J. J. Dollinger calls it “the great national disease of Greece” (J. J. Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, II, p. 239). … In one of his dialogues Lucian makes Lycinus relate: ‘It were better not to need marriage, but to follow Plato and Socrates and to be content with the love of boys’ (Lucian, The Lapiths 39). … Plato’s Symposium ranks as one of the great works of literature. Its subject is love, but it is homosexual love. Phaedrus begins the subject. “I know not,” he says, “any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning life than a virtuous lover, or to the lover than a beloved boy” (Plato, Symposium 178 D).
Gibbon writes: “Of the first fifteen Emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct. Julius Caesar was notoriously the lover of King Nicomedes of Bithynia. ‘The queen’s rival,’ they called him and his passion was the subject of the ribald songs the soldiers sang. Nero ‘married’ a castrated youth called Sporus and went in marriage procession with him throughout the streets of Rome, and he himself was ‘married’ to a freedman called Doryphorus.”107
Barclay draws the following conclusion: “It has been said that chastity was the one completely new virtue which Christianity introduced into the pagan world.”108 With the prevalence of such immorality in the Gentile culture, it is easy to understand the apprehension of the Jewish legalist. To prevent such corruption they felt that the rigors and restrictions of the Law were best imposed upon the Gentile saint.
Nevertheless, the Judaizers were wrong. Paul’s words in verse 13 make it clear that the freedom which the gospel gives is not the freedom to sin, but freedom from sin. Biblical freedom does not cater to the flesh, but crucifies it (cf. v. 24). Indulging the flesh is merely slavery to it, and thus is not freedom at all (cf. John 8:34; Rom. 7:16). Whenever one is a servant of the flesh, one is in bondage to it. Paul asserts that there is freedom from bondage to sin. Biblical freedom is not freedom to serve sin. It is not a license to immorality and all of the Gentile paganisms of the day. Paul’s word to the Judaizers is “the liberty of the gospel produces what you want—freedom from sin. The Law can never have this result.” Rather than being an opportunity to sin, freedom is a call to love. Paul urges the Galatian believers to “through love serve one another” (v. 13). Thus servanthood is the goal of freedom. We are free from sin. We are free for service to one another; service that is in love, not sensuality.
Verse 14 further destroys the argumentation of the Judaizers. The Judaizers taught that men needed to keep the Law. Paul has been contending that anyone who places himself under the Law by submitting to circumcision is only destined for failure, because it is impossible to perfectly keep the Law. However, even though the Law is wrong as a means to obtain righteousness, it is a commendable goal. This point is of vital importance. The readers of Galatians assume that the Law has no value because they have misinterpreted statements about being free from the Law and having died to the Law. Paul corrects this misunderstanding and states that the Law, in terms of a standard of righteousness, is valid. The righteousness which the Law describes is still a standard for today. While Law is a valid standard it cannot be a source of righteousness. The Judaizers incorrectly taught that the Law was a source of righteousness. They assumed that they could be righteous by keeping the Law. The Law’s standard will be fulfilled by those who walk in the Spirit as Paul makes clear in Romans 8.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the Law could not do (as a source), weak as it was through the flesh, God did sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:2).
Men fulfill the Law, not by submitting to it as the Judaizers advocated but rather by walking in the Spirit. Paul does not discard the Law. Instead he views it as God intended it—a standard of righteousness.
The goal of the Law, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (v. 14b) is rather ironic in light of verse 15. Paul summarizes the requirement of the Law in this way because of the conflict within the Galatian church. The readers of this epistle may have been somewhat perplexed at Paul’s crystallization of the Law in light of the teaching of Christ. Why does Paul not refer to “the great and foremost commandment” (Matt. 22:38)?
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:36-37).
Paul has been talking about devotion to Christ. His theme in these verses has not changed. Devotion to Christ is impossible without love for the brethren.
If someone says, “I love God and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that one who loves God should love his brother also” (1 John 4:20-21).
The great summary of the Law with regard to others was also stated by Christ, “The second is like it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:31). Paul refers to this condensation of the Law because of the conflict in the church. Ironically, the Law under which the Gentiles placed themselves condemned them. The goal of the Law is brotherly love, yet verse 15 clearly indicates their failure in keeping this aspect of the Law. When the Law is promoted as the source of righteousness it has a boomerang effect. Instead of producing righteousness, it leads to selfishness. Rather than unity and harmony, rather than service one to another, the Galatians were biting and devouring each other. Like cats and dogs the Galatians were continually fighting with each other. Paul warned them that such action would eventually destroy them, “Take care lest you be consumed.” Rather than serving one another, they were sacrificing one another.
Initially I viewed verses 13-15 as a parenthesis, something to quickly read so that I could address the walk in the Spirit. After further reflection I am inclined to take these verses as the introduction. In fact, we will not understand the walk in the Spirit that Paul describes unless we understand as well the problem in Galatia. The church was riddled with strife and contention because they placed themselves under the Law, rather than fulfilling it by loving their neighbor as themselves. Thus walking in the Spirit is commanded in light of the goal of freedom, which is to serve one another in love.
15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care lest you be consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.
Verses 16 and 17 are vitally important. Paul writes, “But I say, …” which I take to be a contrast to the biting and devouring one another in verse 15. “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (v. 16).
Paul previously argues in verse 13 that we are not freed in order to serve the flesh. However, in verse 15, Paul describes the Galatians as doing precisely this. They were serving themselves; that is to say, they were serving the flesh. They were not serving one another. Thus in verse 16, Paul capsulizes the solution to their selfishness. He asserts that fleshly desires are combatted by walking in the Spirit. Walking in the Spirit results in serving one another through love.
Verse 17 explains the crux of the conflict by describing the nature of the war within. “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” Within us rages a battle between the flesh and the Spirit. It is critical to have a correct understanding of “the flesh.” The ancient Greeks believed that the real problem was a battle between the mind and the body. Thus some have incorrectly identified “the flesh” with the body. It is not entirely true and is an error still propagated today. One misguided teacher has called the body the “carton,” and he says it is the source of evil. This identification is incorrect because the body is to be presented to God as a holy, living sacrifice. We do not present something evil to God. The body is something which is to be transformed. As a matter of fact, our body will be transformed and glorified (Phil. 3:21). The body is not evil; the flesh is evil. The flesh does refer to our bodily appetites. The flesh is our fallen humanity, our fallen humanness. It is what we are apart from Christ.
We received the Spirit as a result of faith in Christ, and the Spirit is opposed to the flesh. Paul laid this foundation for the Galatians previously in chapter 3.
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Christ Jesus was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? (Gal. 3:1-2).
In the above verses, Paul refers to the initial reception of the Holy Spirit that comes at conversion. He asked, “How did the Spirit come? Did the Spirit come by law-works? Did it come by submitting yourself to the Law? Did it come, so to speak, when you were circumcised?” No. The Spirit came by faith alone, as found in the example of Abram. Paul continues: “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3).
Do you notice that those are two opposing forces—flesh and spirit? The following verses continue the dichotomy between the flesh and the Spirit. “Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law or by hearing with faith?” (Gal. 3:4-5).
A distinct relationship is revealed, the relationship between faith and the Spirit, the Law and the flesh. Faith is related to the Spirit. Faith receives the Spirit of God, the agent of both salvation and sanctification. Law-keeping relies upon the flesh. When Paul speaks about the flesh and Spirit being at war one with another he writes, “For these things are in opposition to one another so that you may not do the things that you please” (v. 17b).
What exactly does Paul mean when he says, “… you may not do the things that you please”? In the light of Romans 7, I believe that Paul means we are unable to do the things that we want to do, that is, the things that we know are good. In other words, I believe it is those things which the Law requires, the standard of righteousness. Thus we are unable to do righteousness because the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another. The Galatians had opted to resist sin by submitting to the Law. However, Paul has demonstrated that submitting to the Law and adopting works results in surrendering faith. When the Law is not only the standard but the source of righteousness, there is only one means through which to keep it; that is, through the flesh. Since the flesh and the Spirit are opposed to one another, the Spirit doesn’t empower men who are under Law. The Spirit empowers men who live by faith. Thus Paul reasons, you cannot do the things which the Law requires. You cannot keep the standards of the Law in the power of the flesh because the flesh is opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit is opposed to the flesh. Consequently, if you are under Law your only power is the flesh, yet walking in the Spirit is the only means to serve one another in love. Men are defeated in their good intentions by submitting to the Law. To place oneself under the Law is to place oneself in a position where only the power of the flesh and the desires of the flesh are operative. Trying to overcome sin with Law is something like trying to put out a grease fire with water. All it does is multiply the problem. It makes sin grow rather than reducing it.
In verses 18 and following Paul characterizes the man who walks in the Spirit as a man who is not under the Law. “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (v. 18). The elaborate description of the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit are given to demonstrate that if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the Law. We will address further the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit in my next message. But I do want you to notice that the things which are described as the deeds of the flesh and the works of the Spirit are not all inclusive. These are not all of the things which are the works of the flesh, nor are they all of the things which are the fruit of the Spirit. Most of us probably assume these lists are complete and use them to assess our spiritual condition. Notice the wording of verse 21, “Those who practice such things …” Thus the works of the flesh that are listed are a mere sampling. Again, notice the wording in verse 23 in reference to the fruit of the Spirit: “against such things there is no law.” The fruits of the Spirit which Paul lists are mere examples.
The fruits of the Spirit and the works of the flesh which Paul has listed, were chosen because of the particular problem of the Galatians. The church was beset with strife, described as biting and devouring one another. When Paul recounted the deeds of the flesh, immorality, impurity, sensuality, I honestly believe that the Galatians were saying “Preach it brother, preach it! Oh, that’s the Gospel! Wow, look at him, coming down on sin!” It must have really tickled the ears of the Galatians because Judaism despised immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, and sorcery (vv. 19b-20a). Those were the “filthy five.”
They agreed with Paul that the “filthy five” shouldn’t be practiced. What they weren’t ready to hear was the rest of the list: “enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these …” (vv. 20-21a). Paul grouped them together as from the same source. Paul categorizes the Galatians “socially acceptable” sins with those that they would abhor committing. He wants to impress upon the Galations that they are acting in the flesh. Jesus severely dealt with the scribes and the Pharisees because of the same issue. The scribes and the Pharisees were basically law-abiding citizens. With, or around whom would you rather live? In what town would you rather live? A Pharisees’ town or a Gentile pagan town? I would choose the Pharisee town any day. However, the Lord reprimanded the scribes and Pharisees, “You white-washed sepulchres, you blind leaders of the blind, you snakes!” Yet He counseled the woman caught in the act of adultery, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Their socially acceptable sin is abominable in God’s sight because it comes out of a self-righteous heart. In our churches today we sometimes tolerate “socially acceptable” sin, while condemning those which are unacceptable (to us, at least).
Just as the deeds of the flesh were selected to address the problem in the Galatian church, the fruits of the Spirit are also samples relating to this strife. I see a relationship between the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit. Let’s call the gifts of the Spirit charisma and the fruit of the Spirit character. They are both manifestations of grace. Is not the source of the fruit of the Spirit grace and not works? The word for spiritual gifts, charismata, is derived from the word for grace, charis. Let us compare spiritual gifts to gasoline and the fruit of the Spirit to oil. Even though gasoline makes a car run, without oil to lubricate the engine it would go nowhere. In the same way, spiritual gifts are a manifestation of God’s grace in the life of a believer, but without the fruit of the Spirit such gifts accomplish nothing.
An unbelieving psychiatrist, Victor Frankel, has given me further insight into this text, although his subject matter vastly differs. He describes the pursuit of happiness in the following words: “As for the pleasure principle I would go even farther in my criticism. It is my contention that in the final analysis that the pleasure is self-defeating.109
Victor Frankel is talking about the pursuit of pleasure as a goal. “The more one aims at pleasure, the more his aim is missed.”110 In other words, the very pursuit of happiness is what thwarts it. Then he continues: “And that is why one need not pursue happiness, one need not care for it once there is a reason for it. But even more, one cannot pursue it. To the extent to which one makes happiness the objective of his motivation, he necessarily makes it the object of his attention.”111
Later in the book he addresses the topic of the status drive. He gives the illustration of himself seeking something selfishly. He had published sixteen books, however one book was written anonymously. In an agreement with the publisher the German translation would be published anonymously. He purposely wrote it anonymously to conceal his identity, and the book turned out to be his bestseller.
Let me relate Victor Frankel’s theory about the pursuit of happiness to the message of the book of Galatians. The primary reason that the Galatians were deceived into pursuing legalism was because “being spiritual” became their goal. I believe that spirituality is never a legitimate goal. Take for example, the life and ministry of our Lord and the disciples. The disciples were concerned about spiritual status. In my estimation, in Christian circles today we attempt to become “spiritual” to attain status in the church. In the world, wealth gives prestige, in the church spirituality gives status. Do you understand why the disciples were concerned about who was going to be first in the Kingdom of God? They were status seekers. They looked for spiritual success to gain prestige. The Lord’s response to this kind of thinking was, “Whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 20:26).
Verse 13 of our passage contains the same message that our Lord conveyed to the disciples. Service, not spirituality, is our goal. I maintain spirituality, like happiness, is something that is unattainable when pursued. It cannot be a legitimate goal. This helps us to understand why our Lord Jesus said to His disciples, “Abide in Me.” The goal is abiding in Christ, and the results are fruit-bearing. We have reversed the goal and the results. We have made fruit-bearing the goal because we think that is spiritual. We look at abiding in Him as the necessary evil, or the necessary mechanism to achieve fruitfulness.
When spirituality becomes our goal one of the consequences is that we become self-centered. We begin to ask ourselves, how am I doing? This is why we are so preoccupied with self-image. I suggest that self-image problems are the result of improper orientation. We are self-centered in orientation instead of being service-centered. In our passage Paul states that our goal is to serve one another.
Think through the Book of Philippians, in the light of what I’ve been saying about servanthood with regard to one another. Servanthood is the goal, not spirituality. When we seek spirituality as the highest aim, we look at distinctions as the basis for elevating ourselves above others. This problem was prevalent in Corinth, for example. When we seek to serve, we see distinctions as the opportunity to minister. We see that the differences in the body are designed by God so that the body can minister to itself in love.
Paul wrote the Book of Philippians in prison. In chapter 1 he sets forth the problems related to his imprisonment, two of which were his uncertain future and the fact that others were preaching the gospel in such a way as to distress Paul. How would you feel, and how would you respond, especially if you were preoccupied with being noted as spiritual? You can imagine the response of the other preachers who preached Christ out of selfish ambition. They said to their congregation, “We really need to pray for Paul. It’s obvious he’s under divine discipline. He’s in jail. God has taken away his ministry. God is rebuking him. Let’s pray for Paul that God would restore him.” Paul’s response to his situation was totally different, “Nevertheless Christ is being preached, and in that I rejoice.” Paul responded this way because he was a servant, not a status-seeker who wanted to be esteemed as spiritual.
Later in the chapter Paul writes that his uncertain future may include either life or death. If death was the outcome he would go to be with Christ. If not, Paul stated that he would labor on and continue to serve the saints. Paul had a servant’s heart, and was willing to do whatever advanced the cause of Christ. Paul drew his example from Christ, described as the suffering servant in chapter 2. I’ve always resisted the interpretation of the passage which says, “Let each one of you esteem others better than himself.” It has always troubled me whether the words in Greek mean “more important than,” or “better than.” I finally see the wisdom of the word “better.” What is the mentality of a servant? He sees others as over him. What is the mentality of one who chooses to be spiritual? He aspires to leadership. He aspires to have people serve him. The mentality of a servant is the mentality that sees others as better than and more important than himself.
In Philippians chapter 3 Paul is renouncing the error of the teaching of the circumcisers that men must submit to the Law to obtain righteousness. These men aspired to achieve their prescribed standard of spirituality. Instead Paul sought only to know Christ and Him crucified, the power of His resurrection. I suggest that one of the greatest problems in the church is that we’ve been seeking spirituality and not servanthood. Our focus is shifting from Christ, and we’re beginning to ask, “How spiritual are we?” We really cannot answer that question. I think that’s why Paul said in 1 Corinthians “I don’t judge myself” (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4). Spirituality is God’s business. Abiding is our responsibility. Serving is our responsibility. Whenever we shift our focus from Christ, even to such a pious-sounding commodity as spirituality, we begin to emphasize outward, external standards. This is the essence of legalism.
99 Winston Churchill, The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston: The Houghton Mifflin Company, 1948), p. 443.
100 William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), pp. 625-626.
103 This thinking was not helped by the heading provided by the editors of some Bibles and by the way some commentators divide the chapter. The NIV is an exception, taking verses 13-15 as the introductory words of Paul under the category of “Life by the Spirit.”
104 I am quoting from the NASV because I prefer its more literal renderings of this passage, especially in the light of the need to carefully understand the meaning of technical terms such as “flesh,” which the NIV renders more loosely “sinful nature.”
105 Quoted by William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House [paperback], 1976), pp. 24-25.
109 Viktor Frankl, The Will to Meaning (New York and Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 33.
I hope all of us have spiritual mentors. One of the men who has had a profound impact on my spiritual life is J. I. Packer. I have been deeply enriched by his writings over the years. He has recently published a new book entitled, Keep in Step With the Spirit. It is one of the finest books on the spiritual life I have ever read, and I want to encourage you to read it. The title is borrowed from Galatians 5:25, “And if we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” J. I. Packer has an uncanny sensitivity to criticize his own theological position. He perceives a lack of devotion among those of his own doctrinal persuasion; however he is not blind to the weakness of doctrine that is often found among those who show great devotion. J. I. Packer’s writings have been heavily influenced by his own spiritual mentor, John Owen. Multnomah Press has republished this Puritan writer’s work entitled, Sin & Temptation. It is one of the most profound books I have read on this subject. If you are serious about the spiritual life, I urge you to read it, not as a substitute for Bible study, but to help you gain insight and perspective into many of the biblical passages.
In this message I will address the subject of the spiritual life. The nature of such a study demands topical exposition for two reasons: (1) In the Book of Galatians, Paul approaches the subject with tunnel vision since he reviews the spiritual life in light of the Galatian perversions; and (2) Many other passages in the New Testament address the topic of the spiritual life and give added insight to their subject.
The subject of the spiritual life is very crucial. I want you to understand the critical importance of this subject since the greatest conflict in the life of every Christian is their struggle in the spiritual walk. The most influential men of modern and ancient times have found their greatest challenge to be their spiritual life. One illustration of this is found in a book by Frances Schaeffer entitled, True Spirituality. In the preface he states that after ten years of ministry in America, he had a serious spiritual crisis which caused him to reevaluate the complete basis of his spiritual position. Harry Ironside had a similar crisis in his spiritual life. Another man, who described himself as a student, honestly evaluated his spiritual struggles as follows:
His perplexity was this. He had heard and read his teachers describing a state of sustained victory over sin. It was pictured as a condition of peace and power in which the Christian, filled, and borne along by the Holy Spirit, was kept from falling and was moved and enabled to do things for God which would otherwise be beyond him. To yield, surrender, and concentrate oneself to God was the prescribed way in. … But the student’s experience as he tried to forge his way in was like that of the poor drug addict whom he found years later trying, and with desperate concentration, to walk through a brick wall. His attempts at total consecration left him where he was—an immature and churned-up young man, painfully aware of himself, battling his daily way, as adolescents do through manifold urges and surges of discontent and frustration … It all seemed a long way from the victorious power-packed life which those Christians were supposed to enjoy, who by consecration had emptied themselves of themselves.
But what should he do? According to the teaching all that ever kept Christians from this happy life was unwillingness to pay the entry fee—in other words, failure to yield themselves fully to God. So all he could do was to repeatedly reconsecrate himself, scraping the inside of his psyche until it was bruised and sore in order to track down still unyielded things by which the blessing was perhaps being blocked. His sense of continually missing the bus, plus his perplexity as to the reason why he was missing it, became painful to live with, like a verruca or a stone in your shoe that makes you wince every time you take a step.112
This man recounts how he had been elected as the librarian for a scholastic group. During his tenure as a librarian someone gave the group a 20 volume “uncut” set of John Owen’s works. As he began to cut some of the pages he read parts of the study. He was impressed with the volume entitled, Sin & Temptation. This man was J. I. Packer. He is convinced he owes his spiritual sanity to John Owen and his works on the spiritual life.
I am simply saying to you that when you meet renowned men of God, you will discover that those great men struggled with their spiritual life, and when you meet anyone who has a heart for God and is honest, they will tell you the same. This subject is an urgent issue, because those who want to know God agonize over the spiritual life. Their agony often comes because they have been wrongly taught. Many who have taught on the spiritual life have not taught it concisely or biblically. Consequently believers are trying to carry on a spiritual walk that only leads to brick walls because the teaching they receive is not accurate. Great damage has been done and will be done by false teaching.
Furthermore, within our traditions in evangelicalism, we have not produced a great number of men with a heart for God. Personal piety and holiness has not been the great offshoot of our strain of evangelicalism. Now that may come as a rather distressing revelation, and I am sorry if it does, but let me read you a couple of comments by J. I. Packer on that very subject.
The plain fact is that today’s biblical Christians wherever else they are strong, are weak on the inner life, and it shows.113
As he reviews various strains of the religious movement, he concludes that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians have often had a deeper sense of communion with God than Evangelicals. While distressing, I think Packer’s observation is true. Among the many reasons for this problem is our difficulty in concentrating on the inner life while fighting over inerrancy—the battle for the Bible. The fact is, when you are fighting for religious convictions, it’s tough to be thinking about your inner life. The teaching on the spiritual life is so crucial for us, because while we are vitally concerned about biblical orthodoxy, our relationship with God is very shallow.
Let me sensitize you to the different historical schools of thought on the spiritual life. The first issue with respect to the spiritual life revolves around whether the Christian has one or two natures. A related question deals with whether there are really spiritual Christians and carnal Christians. Reformed theologians refute a division of natures and thus argue there is no such thing as a carnal Christian. It is important to understand the facts precipitating this controversy. Biblically speaking, we know that the source of sin includes “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” Unfortunately our understanding of “the world, the flesh, and the devil” is limited and often distorted.
A second related question is to what extent can sin be overcome in the life of a believer. In answer to this question the pendulum swings from those who stress Romans 7 and the inevitable struggle against sin to those who teach that sin can be totally eradicated in the life of the believer. Each one of us must admit that we struggle against sin every day, but we must not be so fatalistic that we are content to live with sin. On the other hand, each of us truly desires to be victorious over sin. However, the different views of perfectionism are extremely reactionary to Biblical reality. Both the Wesleyan view which teaches that sin can be eradicated from the heart but not from our deeds, and the more extreme perfectionistic tradition which teaches that sin can be eradicated altogether, are not true to our Christian experience. Reality lies somewhere in the middle of the swing of the pendulum. The question is what exactly does the Bible teach with respect to the believer’s practical dealing with sin?
A third related question is how does divine sovereignty and human responsibility relate to overcoming sin? Those who stress divine sovereignty believe that sin is conquered as the believer allows God to work in their life. Their maxim is, “Let go, and let God.” Those who emphasize human responsibility teach that the believer is obligated to overcome sin. J. I. Packer described his past experience of struggle in the Christian life. He found himself under the burden of trying to deal with sin by dredging and scraping his soul clean. He found this task impossible to complete.
Another issue is the matter of methods for living the Christian life. Some teach that salvation and sanctification are inseparably intertwined. I am among them. This view holds that sanctification is the outworking of salvation. Others teach that sanctification, though like salvation, differs in that a believer must have a “crisis” sanctification conversion experience. A new realm of spiritual existence is then entered in total submission to divine sovereignty.
Another issue with respect to the spiritual life deals with the exegesis of crucial passages. Most critical is the exposition of Romans 6-8. The sloppy handling of Romans 6 has caused many to have difficulty in their spiritual life. I visited a woman years ago in the psychiatric ward of Presbyterian Hospital who said, “I have been reckoning, and reckoning, and re-reckoning, and I still can’t get spiritual.” She saw Romans 6 as the means of sanctification, not as the basis for it. I believe Romans 6 describes the basis and the necessity for the spiritual life, but it does not give the method for living the spiritual life. The Bible does not give a formula for living other than “walking in the Spirit,” which is described in Romans 6-8. I want to challenge you to read J. I. Packer’s exposition of Romans 6 - 8.114
A final issue relates to theology. What place does the law have with respect to the spiritual life? Some suggest that the law has absolutely no value to the believer. They fail, however, I believe, to understand the context of the Book of Galatians because its message deals with legalism. The Book of Galatians was written to refute the view of the Judaizers that the law was a means of salvation and sanctification. In this book, Paul negatively addresses the subject of the law with a specific problem in mind. However, in Romans 7 Paul argues that the law is holy, righteous, and good. While Paul in the inner man agreed with the law, he just was not able to do it. As believers, what place should we give the law? I believe the law has no place, so far as a means of sanctification or salvation; however, the law does provide a standard of righteousness. In Romans 8:4, Paul says that those who walk in the Spirit will fulfill the law. The law is thus a beautiful standard, but it is not a source or a means of righteousness.
I want to return to one of my initial observations. There are many different positions on the spiritual life—Augustinian, Wesleyan perfectionism, Keswick movement, and the charismatic movement. However, the grim reality of life is that across the board you will find in each of these categories godly people and also those who have a shallow-to-nonexistent spiritual life. Just having the right theological categories doesn’t produce holiness of life, and it doesn’t make men or women spiritual. J. I. Packer, a hard-core, five point Calvinist, made this observation in regard to John Wesley, a rather loose Arminian:
Yet Wesley’s doctrine of perfection, as he and his brother Charles set it forth in homiletic prose and ecstatic hymns respectively, gave the Wesleyan version of the Christian life a quality of ardor, exuberance, and joy—-joy in knowing God’s love, and praising his grace, and resigning oneself into his hands—that went beyond anything we find in Calvin, the Puritans, and the earlier Pietists.115
In the Augustinian tradition, Augustine himself, Gernard, and Richard Baxter, came closest to it, but the passionate reasonings and rhapsodies of the Wesley brothers seem to the present writer at any rate to excel them all in this respect.116
Isn’t it amazing that a hard core Calvinist should admit this? It isn’t just one theological position that establishes the Christian’s relationship with God in a practical way in terms of the spiritual life. By the way, Packer says there are two explanations for this truth.117
(1) We need to understand that often it is not the error, but the truth of the position that leads to piety. He says of the Keswick movement, which caused him so much consternation, that it has blessed people and led to spiritual richness in their lives because it exalted Jesus Christ.
(2) God is gracious and He deals with men on the basis of their heart. When men have a genuine heart for God, God tends to ignore their bad theology and communes with their devoted heart. Packer says that God is not like a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat must have all the papers filled out just right. They will send forms back a dozen times if they haven’t been filled out exactly according to instructions. God differs from bureaucrats because He is not as wrapped up in all the details as He is concerned about men’s attitude toward Him and their desire toward Him.
Whether one may hold the different orthodox positions of Wesley or John Owen, who are at theological polarities, the spiritual life can be enhanced by understanding what leads to godliness in men’s lives.
(1) The results of the spiritual life are often more evident than the reasons for it. Notice in Galatians 5 Paul says, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, but the fruit of the Spirit is …” It is easy to look at the results of spirituality rather than figure out the reasons behind it. This is so because of the nature of the Spirit. The results of the spiritual life are manifestations of the Spirit and are called the fruit of the Spirit. Remember in John 3 when Jesus met with Nicodemus and He said that the Spirit of God’s work in men is like the wind? The wind is not visible, but the results which it creates are. The Spirit is self-effacing. The Spirit is not concerned about the limelight. Thus the Spirit is evident by His fruits, rather than by His actual, visible presence. Consequently, the results of the spiritual life are more evident than the reasons. This is why the fruit of the spiritual life is emphasized. Hence our Lord said, “By their fruit you shall know them.”
(2) There are no formulas for the spiritual life. Did you notice that in Galatians 5 there are no formulas or methods for living the spiritual life? Paul only commands us to “walk in the Spirit.” Now for a methodist (in the generic sense), for one who is always method orientated, for one who wants steps and outlines and procedures, this is the most frustrating revelation of all. The spiritual life ultimately cannot be cranked out by following formulas, because formulas are antithetically opposed to “walking in the Spirit.” Since “walking in the Spirit” is dependence upon God, each Christian’s walk with the Lord is unique because it is personal. The standards of Scripture are not abrogated by this fact.
Let us examine some of the characteristics exhibited in the lives of spiritual believers whether they be Wesleyan or Reformed. Let me tell you that some of these areas ought be evident in our lives as well.
(1) A heart for God. More than anything else it is apparent to me that those who are truly spiritual have a heart for God. David is an illustration of an Old Testament saint who had a heart for God. David was “a man after God’s own heart.” Even when David sinned he responded to God’s corrective Word rather than rationalizing his behavior. Paul is an example of a New Testament saint who had a heart for God. He had a preoccupation with Jesus Christ. Thus he says in Philippians 3, “that I may know Him.”
(2) An intimacy with God. Intimacy is something that can hardly be defined. It is characterized by a comfortableness with God. This intimacy can be sensed in the prayers of some. Some prayers are seemingly a “to whom it may concern,” or like a mimeographed version of a letter. Such letters come in the mail and while all the information is there, something’s missing. Sometimes I get a letter in the mail addressed to “Robert T. Deffinbaugh” (my name is “Robert L. Deffinbaugh”). The phone directory has my name wrong so I know precisely where they obtained my name. I lack all sense of intimacy and interest in such a letter, because they know me only from a book. Intimacy with God manifests itself in honesty with God. The Psalmist is honest when he approaches God. Instead of mouthing the same old platitude, he speaks his mind. He tells God all while the rest of us put on a pious garb. When there is intimacy with God you are aware that God knows you better than you know yourself. So why fake it with God? Open yourself up to God and tell Him your inner thoughts, emotions, and needs.
(3) A hunger and a thirst after righteousness. In my last message I said it is wrong to pursue other people’s esteem or estimation of us as spiritual. Furthermore, our own estimation of our spiritual condition may be misleading. Let us pursue God in all of His holiness. Let us not seek to obtain people’s “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” on our spiritual life. In the Sermon on the Mount, those who seek God and who hunger and thirst for righteousness are blessed.
(4) A grasp of the gospel. Many people think the gospel is like an illness; hopefully it is something that will pass. This can be illustrated with respect to the Lord’s Supper. There may be a tendency to say, “Why do we repeat this week after week?” This question arises because of a misunderstanding of the gospel. Those who really know God have a depth of understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ and His work. Paul began Galatians 1 with his own conversion experience because at that point God radically changed his life. The gospel he received transformed his life and everything that he did. From that point on, all that Paul taught was vitally related to the gospel: God’s holiness, man’s sinfulness, and the centrality of the cross of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the focus of Paul’s teaching and action, and it is central to all those who truly know God. They never get over the gospel! The gospel is not only the basis of entrance into the spiritual life; it is the basis of the spiritual life. That is why Paul says in Galatians 5:24: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh.” This is not teaching mortification of the flesh, though other passages may; it is saying when you were saved the flesh was put to death. Consequently Paul says, “If we live by the Spirit (regeneration), let us also walk by the Spirit.” If we have been converted, born again by the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit. Paul states in Colossians, “As you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” The gospel is the ground of everything we do. It is not only the basis of our salvation; it is the basis of our sanctification.
(5) A consciousness of conflict. Evangelical Christians today do not have a consciousness of the inner warfare described in Galatians 5. The charismatics also lack this consciousness, although they are to be commended for their awareness of the Ephesians 6 warfare. It is easier to say, “Satan and the demons are at work in the world,” than to say, “The flesh is at work in here! The problem is me!” This is the inner war that Paul describes as the conflict in Galatians 5.
(6) A recognition of imperfection. It is interesting that Wesley never claimed perfection as he taught it. He said, “The spirituality of which I speak in principle, I have never attained to.”118 Great and godly men have always been overcome with a sense of their own sin and failure. I am excited about the book Loving God by Charles Colson. However, it focuses on the initial commitment to obedience, and many of us need to start there. But after that initial commitment to love and to serve God, whatever the cost, no matter how pure and how holy that commitment may have been, the enactment will have problems. That is the nature of the results of the inner conflict. Packer says, “I never preached a sermon but what I could have done better. I never preached a sermon but what there were motives of impurity in my own heart.”119 I want to give you an illustration from my own life this past week. It was late as I drove into the parking lot to pick up my daughter at Braum’s where she works. One car had its headlights shining on another car, which was locked with the keys inside. My daughter got in my car as I walked over where the police were trying to open the car door with a professional lock-picking tool. Although this tool is available at our local parts store, I don’t need it; I always use a clothes hanger. The police tried numerous times, but they were unable to open the door. At this point I had an uncontrollable desire to get in that car. I drove to a nearby friend’s house and borrowed a pair of needle-nose pliers and a clothes hanger. On returning, I took command of the situation, and pushing the police aside, I displayed my expertise at breaking into locked cars. Five minutes later the car was open, and the party was on their way. Now I must tell you that I’m not even sure this deed started with spiritual motivation. I love the challenge of breaking into locked cars! On another occasion a AAA wrecker came to rescue a car that was mistakenly locked. After an hour the dispatcher sent the wrecker home with his professional tools. The car was a GM with a slide lock, so there was no handle to hook onto and pull up. That job took me a little longer, but it was especially satisfying. As a matter of fact, the other day (as long as I am confessing, I might as well tell it all), I was at the gas station, and the attendant had locked his keys in the office. I reached through the cash drawer with a long wire, fished his keys off the table at the back, and he gave me $3 worth of gas. I want to tell you that I received more pleasure than just three bucks! My point in these illustrations is that I do not think I even started to open these cars with any spiritual intention. I had a special sense of prideful pleasure when I told the police officer, “Step aside, sonny, and let a professional do this!” Often things we start that seem to be well motivated are corrupted by the flesh because of the war within. What we begin well, we don’t necessarily end well. The reality of life is that even if one whole act may possibly have been done spiritually, and without sin, a moment’s reflection on it later will corrupt it. This is why legalism will never sanctify. Once aware of the war within, and the fact that the flesh is always twisting and corrupting the mind, the intellect, the emotions, or the will, then we remove all hope of ever doing anything totally right.
(7) A realization that the spiritual life is humanly impossible. The spiritual life is similar to “walking on water.” It is absolutely impossible! In the gospel account Peter walked on the water but he began to sink as we see from the text that he obviously took his eyes off the Lord upon seeing the fearful wind and waves. Imagine, however, that Peter was not fearful but proud, or imagine that I attempted to walk on water. I would get out of the boat and tentatively test the water to see how well it supported me. As I was able to walk I would become more confident. I might then glance back to the others in the boat, thinking to myself that they were not as spiritual as I, perhaps even saying: “Hey, this is easy! Why don’t you come on out?” Pride would eventually overtake me with the thought, “Why, this isn’t bad; I should have done this sooner”—just as a big wave knocked me off my feet! Remember Peter’s experience was during a storm when the waves would have been moving quite roughly. The water supported him, but as the waves moved they could trip him; it probably was not easy. Similarly in the spiritual life, aggressive concentration is required even with God’s enablement, and we must realize that without divine enablement the spiritual life is impossible.
(8) A desire for selflessness and service. Those who are spiritual in biblical terms are selfless and are concerned about service, a subject discussed in the last message which I will not concentrate on here. Those who are truly spiritual have genuine humility. They understand the nature of grace, which excludes pride, because grace is always undeserved.
(9) A sense of a broader community. In Corinth the carnal Christians said, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas.” To the Corinthian the company of the committed was rather small. Note the old saying: “I’m not so sure about anybody but you and me, and I’m not even too sure about you.” The mentality of self-centeredness is proud and elitist. Those who are truly spiritual are sensitive to a broader group of believers in Christ. J. I. Packer makes this point well. Having a sensitivity to the working of God in the lives of others and a willingness to recognize God’s presence even when there are some doctrinal differences are characteristics of the spiritual believer. Packer emphasizes this in regard to Wesley, an Armenian:
I give the final word to Charles Wesley, the supreme poet of Christian experience. Here he expresses to perfection the prayerful state of mind of those in whom the Spirit is working holiness; and if it strikes us that one or two of his phrases suggest doctrinal misconceptions, we should tell ourselves that just as there is a time for making an issue of such things, so also there is a time for letting them pass.120
Packer says, “I don’t agree with Wesley’s theology, but I want to tell you that I think the Spirit of God is at work in the man and I accept it, and I accept him.” Those who walk in the Spirit sense the Spirit’s work in others, as well as in themselves. They respond to the Spirit, while they may reject the other’s theology. There is a broader perception of the body of Christ in those who are spiritual. This perception also affects a believer’s devotion to certain teachers. In Corinth the carnal Christians identified themselves with only one teacher. Those who are sensitive to the Spirit’s work in others are willing to be taught by anyone in whom the Spirit of God dwells and who speaks according to the truth of Scripture. Their teachers are many, not few. There is also a sense in which there is a willingness to learn from a variety of people. For instance Packer could learn from Wesley, although he differs from him in many regards. While we need to be willing to learn from teachers and others we also need to rely upon the Spirit’s work in teaching us individually. I fear that in this day in which we stress discipleship, there is an undue, inordinate sense of reliance upon other people which I think is not good. While we do need other people, let us beware of an undue reliance upon them rather than a self-sufficiency that comes in Christ.
(10) A sense of anticipation and urgency. Those who are genuinely spiritual believe the days before the Lord returns are few. Expectation and urgency characterize such believer’s lives. They focus on spiritual activity. All through the Scriptures, Old and New, men’s actions were based on promise, and promise called for activity. God has promised to provide for our needs! God has promised to empower us! God has given us the vision, and that is why activity is necessary. Paul says, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12c-13). God is the One who is working in us, so we should humbly give ourselves to that work.
(11) A passion for the Word of God. I read this week a pamphlet by Martin Luther and was impressed once again by the Reformation principle, sole Scripture, Scriptures only. Now I understand the context in which they formed this principle. The Roman Catholic Church is a highly authoritarian system where members are told what to believe; believe the church. However, the principle is valid. We need to have a dependence upon the Word of God and an insatiable appetite for it. Those who are spiritual spend much time in the Scriptures seeking God’s Word.
Let me make some concluding observations. First, we are very adamant in condemning the legalist who evaluates other people on outward standards; and yet we do the same thing, only our measure of evaluation is often a doctrinal creed (however accurate it may be). There is a sense in which we evaluate people by their conformity to our creed, first and foremost. This is not to say that a person can deny the fundamentals of the faith, and yet exhibit a spiritual life. Although I was not present when Frances Schaeffer spoke here, I heard this story about his visit. During the question and answer period someone asked, “Are you a four or a five point Calvinist?” Dr. Schaeffer was caught off guard. Pausing for a minute he responded, “Oh, that’s right—this is Dallas isn’t it?”
We make the touchstone of spirituality adherence to some form of systematic theology. In this sense we are no better than the legalist of Paul’s day. Today spirituality is warped to the extent that we ignore the truth. Let’s cease in our judgments of who belongs to the spiritual circle of the committed. Instead, let’s make a study of the true nature of the spiritual life.
Packer makes an excellent observation about the spiritual life when he quotes a statement by G. K. Chesterton: “And don’t believe in anything that can’t be told in coloured pictures.”121
Any picture, like any idea, that is out of focus and in black and white is so abstract and ethereal that it isn’t worth trusting. When I attended seminary Dr. Charles Ryrie was known to say, “If you can’t teach it to a two-year old class, it probably isn’t worth teaching.” There is a lot of enigma in what is being communicated. Truth that is taught clearly is taught by means of object lessons. This is evidently one reason Jesus taught in parables and why all communicators do well to cultivate a style of presentation that is as imaginative as it is analytical. We find this method in writers like C. S. Lewis and preachers like C. H. Spurgeon. As Packer notes, the problem in understanding the spiritual life is that it has been taught and illustrated poorly:
Why? Because bad pictures grab the imagination, too, and prepossess the mind with strong notions, and in recent times this particular doctrine has suffered from bad pictures more than most. It has been verbalized and illustrated in ways that suggest that we can turn on the Spirit’s power to work automatically in our lives; that holy persons are borne along with a state of psychological passivity; that they may uncritically trust their present thoughts and feelings as coming from God, once they have handed over their thought lives and emotional lives to their Lord; and that while Christ lives his divine life in their physical bodies, their personal selfhood is, or should be, in abeyance. … No wonder our thinking goes astray when wrong notions and bad pictures are cluttering our minds.122
Furthermore Packer correctly points out that there are a lot of unbiblical phrases about the spiritual life used today. He says they become the only vocabulary some people possess for thinking and talking about what Scripture calls “repentance” and “obedience” in the Christian life.
My application is this: make a study of what the spiritual life really means. Too often we are pursuing what Packer says is a “will-of-the-wisp.” Although we don’t even know what we are looking for, and we are trying to find a formula to reach a goal we haven’t even defined. Make a study of the spiritual life and define it; more importantly, desire it. Ask God to produce in your heart more than anything else a desire to know Him. There is a popular statement, “Where there is a will there is a way.” Oftentimes we are looking for the way without having the will. We want to know what spirituality is, but do we want to be spiritual? Our problem isn’t wrong methods; our problem is wrong motivation. We don’t really have our heart set toward God. That is ultimately the issue of spirituality. When your heart is right toward God, I am convinced that God will lead you into that intimacy that He has promised.
Finally, get moving! God has given us promises about the spiritual life, and all we need to do is to claim them and act on them. We don’t sit and wait for God to move us; God has moved. The Spirit is within us. His promises are true. I encourage you to begin at that point.
112 J. I. Packer, Keep in Step With the Spirit (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984), pp. 157-158.
Most of you know that I taught in a state prison for three months during the summer between my first and second years of seminary. The occasion for this teaching opportunity was unfortunate. A seasoned Christian educator who had many successful years of teaching was unable to control her class. One fourth-grade girl had become the ringleader of a vicious attack on this lovely woman. Normally this teacher was capable of meeting such a challenge, but for some unknown reason, she was not able to control this class. When the teacher’s breaking point became noticeable, the class intensified their attack. I was brought in to complete the few weeks remaining in the school year as she was unable to cope with the situation. Because of my apparent success in squelching this rebellion (I, with the help of a woman teacher, brought the student back under control), consequently I was given a recommendation which enabled me to get a temporary teaching assignment in a medium security prison.
I have always looked upon the response of that fourth-grade class as a unique and unexplainable “turning” against the teacher, intensified by her inability to rally to her own defense. As I read Galatians 5, I find that the behavior of that class might not be as unusual as I first thought. Some Christians have the uncanny ability to turn on one another at the very time when support and encouragement are most needed. In the name of holiness and preserving purity, we can assault brothers and sisters who desperately need affirmation and assistance, rather than attack.
Legalists have the uncanny ability of applying the law more harshly toward others than toward themselves. The legalist concentrates on his strengths and the weaknesses of others. Thus the scribes and Pharisees were ready to stone the woman guilty of adultery (John 8:2-11), yet they were insensitive to their breach of the law by taking advantage of the helpless (Mark 12:40; cp. Jas. 1:27), the neglect of their responsibilities to their own families (Mark 7:10-13), or their persecution of the righteous (Matt. 23:29-39). In their desire to maintain at least the appearance of severity toward sin, the legalists of Paul’s day had become calloused and even cruel toward those who had stumbled in their Christian walk. It is this problem which is addressed in verses 1-5 of chapter 6.
Legalism has no interest in reducing the burdens which men must bear. Instead, it produces burdens and then refuses to assist those on whom they are imposed. Jesus contrasted Himself with the scribes and Pharisees with respect to burdens:
“And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matt. 23:4).
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My load is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).
Peter rightly criticized the Judaizers when he said,
“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10).
It is thus altogether appropriate for Paul to address the subject of burden-bearing, with respect to the “Galatian problem” and in view of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The context of chapter 5 is essential to the proper handling of our text. The contention and strife which characterized the churches was further evidence that legalism, rather than liberty, was the norm (5:1, 13). It was obvious that the strife among the saints was of the “works of the flesh,” rather than the “fruit of the Spirit” (5:19-23). Christian liberty used to “serve one another in love” (5:13) is possible only through walking in the Spirit (5:16). I believe that verses 1-5 provide us with a very practical example of how the “walk in the Spirit” was to work in the church life of the Galatian Christians.
This harshness and strife of the Galatian saints toward one another is crucial to a correct interpretation and application of our passage. It distinguishes it from the other texts dealing with the subject of discipline. In Matthew 18, our Lord stresses the process of rebuke and restoration, without any specific problem in mind. In 1 Corinthians chapter 5, Paul deals with the subject from a very different perspective. In the Corinthian church, a man was known to be living with his father’s wife, and even the pagans were shocked by it. The Corinthians were not grieved by this sin, but were proud of their tolerance and love. Paul thus addresses the need to preserve the purity of the church, in the light of the polluting impact of harboring such sin.
In Galatians 6 just the opposite is the case. Rather than overlooking serious sin, the Galatian Christians, in emphasizing legalism, had become harsh and judgmental, attacking others for their offenses. The remedy for the Corinthians was to exercise judgment; the Galatians needed to extend mercy. As we consider the matter of our response to sin in the lives of fellow believers, let us remember that this is only one of the texts dealing with the subject, and that it may or may not relate directly to any specific situation which we face. Let us seek to look to the Spirit who inspired this passage so that we might understand and apply it as a part of our walk in the Spirit.
I understand verses 1-5 to fall into two distinct, yet related, parts. In verses 1 and 2, Paul deals with those burdens which Christians corporately must help others bear. In verse 1, this responsibility is summarized as a precept, and in verse 2 it is substantiated in principle. In verses 3-5, Paul refers to those burdens which we alone must bear as individuals. The precept is given in verses 3 and 4; the principle is provided in verse 5. The change in perspective between bearing the burdens of others (v. 2) and bearing our own burden (v. 5) is deliberate. By this tension Paul stimulates our interest so that we will better be able to deal with the sins of others in the light of our own sin.
1 Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.
Several observations will help us understand the nature of the problem in these two verses, as well as Paul’s prescription for it.
(1) The problem and the solution should be handled in and by the church. The epistle is written to the Galatian churches, and pertains to the problem they, in common, face (cf. Gal. 1:2, 6ff.). The introductory term “brethren” in verse 1 confirms the fact that it is Christians who are to deal with the problem. The “you” of verse 1 is plural and not singular, which emphasizes the obligation of the church as a body to respond to the sin of a saint. It is inferred in this verse (and stated elsewhere, 1 Cor. 5:9-13) that the sinner (the one “caught in any trespass”) is a saint. We are thus dealing with the church’s obligation to respond to the sin of a saint.
(2) The sin is undefined and unexpected. While the possibility of sin is no surprise, the actual occurrence of it is, both to the stumbling Christian and to the church. There is some doubt as to the precise meaning of the Greek term rendered “caught,” but it seems to suggest that the saint was caught off guard.123 In other words, Paul is not dealing so much with a calculated, premeditated, and habitual sin, but with one which has taken all by surprise.124 Our law, for example, distinguishes between a premeditated murder and murder which occurs in a moment of passion. Both, of course, are sin, but the former is more serious than the latter because of its deliberateness.
The sin of which Paul speaks is therefore very different from that condemned by Paul in the fifth chapter of 1 Corinthians. That man was living with his father’s wife, a willful, continual, violation of the Old Testament Law, of New Testament standards of conduct, and even pagan morality. The church let this sinful relationship drag on, and it would seem that this man and his “wife” were accepted warmly into fellowship. While a whole range of sins are possible in Galatians 6, the sin addressed appears to be sudden and momentary.
(3) The church must respond to the sin which has overtaken the saint. Although the sin is unexpected, nevertheless it has overpowered the believer. This passage is not providing Christians with a license to meddle in the lives of others, but rather is teaching their responsibility to come to the aid of the one who has been overtaken by a certain sin. The stumbling saint must be assisted with his burden because he is not able to bear it alone. There are at least two implications why believers must assist individuals caught up in sin. First the individual may not be able to cope with the sin’s power over him. Secondly, the guilt or the consequences of that sin may be so great that the saint is overwhelmed by it.
(4) The responsibility of the church is to restore the saint. In 1 Corinthians 5, the responsibility of the church was to remove the sinner (1 Cor. 5:2, 5, 7, 13). The responsibility of the saint in Matthew 18 is to reprove the offender (Matt. 18:15). However in our text, the obligation of the “spiritual” is to restore the sinner. The Greek word rendered “restore” is used to describe the mending of torn fishing nets (Matt. 4:21). The ancient Greeks used this word for the setting of broken bones. In Ephesians 4:12 the same term is used for “equipping” of the saints. In 1 Corinthians 1:10 Paul uses this same Greek word to describe divisions within the Corinthian church. Clearly, the term has the positive implication of healing and restoration. The spiritual are urged to restore believers overpowered by sin. Since the term “restore” is a present imperative, it is not just a particular act which is required, but a process. Restoration does not happen instantaneously.
(5) The process of restoration is to be carried out gently. Once again, we see how different the situation described here is from that in 1 Corinthians 5. The Corinthians had been “gentle and gracious” when they should have acted much more forcefully. The man living in incest among the Corinthians did not repent of his premeditated sin. In Galatians Paul is talking about one who is not defensive, but overcome with guilt and self-condemnation for his act. This situation requires encouragement and support, not rebuke and rejection. Gentleness touches the spirit of the sinner, in his fragile and delicate condition.
(6) The restoration process poses a danger for those who are “spiritual.” The doctrine of sinless perfection is devastatingly destroyed as a false teaching by our text. In the first place, the saint is not guaranteed a sin-free existence. Thus Paul sets forth the process and principles for restoration. Furthermore, the “spiritual” believer who seeks to facilitate the restoration process might also be tempted and fall into sin. Paul warns the “spiritual” against falling into temptation by committing a like sin or becoming arrogant and self-righteous. The latter seems to be Paul’s primary emphasis in verses 3-5.
(7) The restoration of a sinning saint is a task for those who are spiritual. The “spiritual” believer has the sensitivity to come to the aid of the stumbling saint when he recognizes his sin. His concern for his brother is motivated by God’s Word and a genuine love. I believe that the “spiritual” are not “Super-Christians,” but the majority of the church.
There is a very practical reason, however, why only the “spiritual” should seek to restore the one overtaken by sin. The “spiritual” are those who “walk in the Spirit” and who thus manifest the “fruit of the Spirit.” Since there is danger for those who seek to restore the sinning saint, only those sensitive to temptation and sin should dare to confront it. Since love, gentleness, goodness, and kindness are required for restoration, these fruits of the Spirit are essential.
(8) Restoration is the outworking of our biblical obligation to bear one another’s burdens. In verse 2 Paul taught that restoring the wayward was fulfilling the law of Christ. Paul’s reasoning is that restoration is burden-bearing and that burden bearing is a part of the “law of Christ” to which we are to be obedient. We are not told precisely what the “law of Christ” is, but it seems likely that it refers to His earthly teaching. While the Judaizers gladly imposed burdens, but never came to the aid of those weighed down with them, Christ bore them Himself, and instructs us to do likewise.
The “burden” which we must bear is one which the stumbling saint cannot bear himself. Just what is meant by the term “burden”?125 What is it that we are to help others bear up under? The burden is something which the sinner is not able to bear himself, whether it be the guilt of his sin, or its controlling power. Since Paul will shortly say that “each one shall bear his own load” (v. 5), this burden must be a load which the sinner cannot bear.
The bottom line is simply this: We are our brother’s keeper. While Satan is the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10), we are to assume responsibility for the restoration and recovery of a fallen brother. The legalist will deal with sin as the Law of Moses did—by condemning the sinner. However, those who have experienced the grace of God, which delivers men from sin, will manifest grace in response to the sin of others. Only those who know grace, can bestow it. Just as we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19), so we are gracious because He has shown us grace (cf. Matt. 18:21-35; Luke 7:36-50).
3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4 But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. 5 For each one shall bear his own load.
Verses 1 and 2 address those burdens which Christians are to help others bear. Verses 3-5 speak of those burdens which we alone must bear. These two facets of the Christian life are not contradictory; they are complimentary. It is only when we can distinguish those burdens which we alone should bear that we can properly help others to bear their burdens. In effect, verses 3-5 enable us to deal with the beam in our own eye, so that we can help others with the speck in theirs. The humility and gentleness which must be manifested in restoring the fallen saint are derived from our understanding of our own burdens.
The introductory “for” of verse 3 is, I believe, a further explanation of Paul’s warning in verse 1 that the “spiritual” also might be tempted in seeking to restore the fallen. The specific issue is the pride with the resulting haughtiness and high-handedness which the “spiritual” might be tempted to exhibit in seeking to restore the wayward saint. We are greatly self-deceived when we suppose that we “are something,” when in fact, Paul says, “we are nothing” (v. 3).
In what sense does Paul say we “are nothing”? Is this not devastating to our sense of self-esteem? It is the legalistic Christian who is the most condemning of others, especially those who have fallen. This disdain for the “sinner” coupled with a pride in their own self-righteousness was characteristic of the scribes and Pharisees. This attitude is observable in the proud prayer of the Pharisee, who was grateful that he was not a sinner, like the publican (Luke 18:9-14). Paul is thus speaking of the self-elevation of pride which the legalist has in his own righteousness, based on law-works. It is self-righteousness which causes a man to think he is something special.126
Paul says, “he is nothing,” not “we are nothing.” There is a great deal of difference. “He is nothing” who seeks to establish his own righteousness by his own works. “He is nothing” who takes credit for the results of the grace of God in his life. Later in the chapter Paul writes, “But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14).
To the Corinthian saints Paul wrote, “For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7). Grace removes all ground for boasting, save in God. His grace has given us everything.
The problem with legalism is that its adherents tend to evaluate their personal spirituality in light of the performance of others. The legalist thus rejoices at the fall of another brother, since he appears better in comparison. His response is that of smug superiority and self-righteous condemnation. His judgment makes him blind to his own sins. The scribes and Pharisees were “shocked” at the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but they were aloof about their sins concerning pride, materialism, and their neglect of the widows and orphans, and even of their own parents.
Paul elsewhere soundly condemned the practice of measuring ourselves against others: “For we are not bold to class or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves; but when they measure themselves by themselves, and compare themselves with themselves, they are without understanding” (2 Cor. 10:12).
The solution to the problem of believers measuring themselves by the performance of others is given in verse 4. Paul commands believers who seek to elevate themselves at the expense of others, to focus on their own responsibility and accountability before God. This same principle of individual accountability is found elsewhere in the New Testament:
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. … But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. … So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom. 14:5, 10, 12; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).
Why is one to examine his own work, as Paul has instructed in verse 4? I believe that there are two reasons. First, whatever good is accomplished through us is by God’s grace, which causes us to boast in Him: “Therefore in Christ Jesus I have found reason for boasting in things pertaining to God. For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, …” (Rom. 15:17-18a).
But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you. For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we shall be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another. But he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord. For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends (2 Cor. 10:13-18).
Our boasting must be in what God has done, through us. Those who have been used of God know better than anyone else that the good they accomplished was solely of God and thus can give Him the glory. For example, the servants who were allowed to participate in the first miracle recognized the power of God at work in Jesus when he transformed the water into wine (John 2:1-11, cf. esp. v. 9). Those who are instruments of God’s grace know that God produced the results for His own glory. Thus Paul tells us to focus on ourselves, on God’s work in and through us, for this results in boasting in God.
A second reason why believers should examine their own work is that God’s grace is given in different forms and in different measure. We cannot compare ourselves to others because each Christian has been given a different measure of faith and grace, with regard to his gifts and calling. Notice some of the passages which clearly teach this.
For through the grace given to me I say to every man among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. … And since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let each exercise them accordingly … (Rom. 12:3, 6a).
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. … But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired (1 Cor. 12:4-7, 18).
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:7).
As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (1 Pet. 4:10).
Our Lord told the parable of the stewards, each having received a different number of talents for which he was responsible (Matt. 25:14-30). The Master dealt with each steward in terms of what he was given. From this parable we learn that those who are given much are required to accomplish more. Those who are given less, have a lesser level of requirement placed on them. The point is that every believer is given a different measure of faith and a different measure of grace, and thus no one can compare himself to others. We can only evaluate ourselves in the light of the measure of grace God has given us.
How easy it is to respond to the sin of a fellow-saint by feeling smugly superior, and by looking down on him (or her). However, this response misses the point of Christianity. On the one hand, we are to bear the burdens of others, rather than to impose burdens on them (such as the burden of condemnation and the rigorous, excessive requirements of legalism). On the other hand, we should be humbled by remembering that just as God will not judge us in comparison with others, neither do we dare compare ourselves with others, especially those who have fallen into a certain sin (of which we are not guilty).
Our text has many implications for Christians today. Allow me to suggest some of these for your consideration.
(1) The doctrine of perfectionism contradicts the Scriptures and experience. Perfectionism comes in a variety of forms. I am referring to that view of the Christian life which maintains that the Christian, after some kind of second experience (the first being salvation), can enter into a state of sinless perfection, and can expect to live a life free from the inward conflict described in Galatians 5:17. If perfection is possible, why would Paul need to prescribe a process for restoring a saint who has fallen into sin? Even more problematic, if perfection is restricted to the “spiritual,” why, then, does Paul warn those who are spiritual that restoring the fallen sinner may lead them into temptation?
The Scriptures simply do not support perfectionism. They teach, instead, of a constant war, both within (Gal. 5:17) and without (Eph. 6:10ff.). The perfectionist may protest, insisting that any “lower” view of the Christian life only promotes sin. He would maintain at least the hypothetical possibility of perfection in this life. Just the opposite is true. Because this doctrine holds perfection as its goal and ideal, it has little, if anything, to say about the “way back” for those who have fallen into sin. The experience of many who have realized their sinfulness, while believing in perfection, is that they live an almost schizophrenic spiritual existence, redefining their sin or just blatantly denying it. Since they have failed to live up to their own standards, they simply give up all hope of any kind of spirituality.
Once we become aware of the war within, and of our fallibility as Christians, we become more cautious about sin, recognizing how susceptible we are to it. Who lives more dangerously, the one who thinks he cannot fall, or the one who knows how easy it is to fall? The greater our sense of danger, the more cautious we will be concerning that danger. Thus, knowing the saint can (and all too often does) sin, gives him good reason to avoid temptation, and to be suspicious of his every motive and deed. Furthermore, when he does fall into sin, he knows that there is hope for his recovery.
Does the knowledge of God’s graciousness toward sinners incline the Christian toward sin? We must remember that sin is so deceptive that the saint is capable of using Scripture to defend his sinfulness. Thus, even those doctrines which are true can be misapplied. Paul answers “God forbid” to any perversion that grace can be exploited for evil ends (cf. Rom. 6:1-2,15). When we begin to grasp the grace of God, gratitude prompts us to give ourselves fully to Him, living a pure and holy life to please Him (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Grace not only provides forgiveness for sin, but also produces a gratitude for that forgiveness which inclines the saint to avoid all future sin. The Law does not prevent sin, but only promotes it, and leaves us with guilt, rather than gratitude (cf. Rom. 7ff.).
Have you experienced the grace of God, my friend? The Christian has drunk deeply of God’s grace at the time of his salvation, and will continue to drink of it all the days of his life. Perhaps you have never come to taste of grace at all, and if this is the case, my prayer is that you will acknowledge your sin and will trust in the work of Jesus Christ, who died in your place. He took the condemnation of the law on Himself, so that you might possess His righteousness and live eternally with Him.
(2) The grace which the Christian has received in Christ must also be shared with others. When our Lord sent out His disciples to heal and to preach the gospel He said to them, “freely you received, freely give” (Matt. 10:8). John wrote, “We love, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Thus the grace of God initially apprehended at our conversion is the grace which we must manifest to all men. Since grace is most needed and most evident in response to sin, we must particularly manifest grace when responding to a fallen brother or sister.
Unfortunately, contemporary Christian practice has frequently failed to follow the principle and practice laid down in our passage and taught by our Lord. Stop and think for a moment about who we seek out. We are often searching for the successful so that we can be blessed by them or so that they can contribute to meeting our own needs somehow. We also are looking for those who are committed and who show potential, so that we can “disciple”127 them and thus produce fruitful Christian service. I am not saying that we should ignore those who are successful or who show potential. However, stop and think about the passages which speak of those whom our Lord sought (and seeks) out. Paul reminds us that not many of them (us) are wise, noble, or well-born. The best description is that we are foolish and simple in the eyes of the world (cf. Acts 4:13; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2:1-5; 2 Cor. 12:9-10). Think of those whom our Lord sought out, as well as those He “slighted”:
17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are downtrodden, 19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:17-19).
And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:16-17).
18 “Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He will not quarrel, nor cry out; Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets. 20 A battered reed He will not break off, And a smoldering wick He will not put out, Until He leads justice to victory. 21 And in His name the Gentiles will hope.” (Matthew 12:18-21 quoting Isa. 42:1-4).
In the passages just cited quoting the words of the prophet Isaiah, the Messiah is spoken of as being indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Both passages speak of Him as coming to those (specifically Gentiles in Isa. 42:1-4) who are despised and rejected. Both speak of His coming and His call of those who are battered, weak, and downtrodden. Is there any doubt as to whom our Lord was speaking in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matt. 5:3-10), and why the poor and oppressed would so heartily welcome Him as Messiah?
My point is this. If Jesus sought those who were afflicted, fallen, needy, and all too aware of their sin and need of salvation, to whom should we minister? I maintain that Galatians 6:1-5 is not the exception as much as it is the rule. Let us minister to those to whom our Lord ministered while He was on the earth. We are His body on the earth in His absence and we are to continue His ministry.
(3) There is no specific process given by which we are to restore the stumbling saint. I have previously stressed that restoring a fallen saint involves a process—one which may go on for some time. However, a particular process is not elaborated. Let me suggest why this is the case. Since the passage deals with a fallen saint in general and not in specific, the nature of the process is dependent upon the particular case at hand. A general problem cannot be solved by a specific solution. Nor can a specific problem be solved generally. Also, since restoring is the responsibility of the church collectively, each individual must minister individually, based upon their specific gifts and calling. Each case, therefore, must be handled on the basis of the individual who has fallen and on the basis of the individuality of the one who seeks to minister grace.
(4) Rebuke is only required where rebellion is present or repentance is refused. It is sad, but true, that the church sometimes has rebuked and even rejected the repentant, while they have encouraged the rebellious. The text which we must always keep in mind is this: “And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men” (1 Thess. 5:14).
Let us be careful to admonish those who are unruly, but to encourage those who are fainthearted, and to help the weak. It is tragic when the weak are injured with rebuke and rejection which rightly should be exercised toward the unruly (rebellious). The church has often failed to discipline where it is necessary, but let us not overcompensate for disciplining where it is not required.
(5) The principle of bearing one another’s burdens applies more generally than just in the case of those who have stumbled in sin. I believe that Paul addresses the instance of an extreme failure in the life of a saint as the ultimate test of love. If Paul says we are to serve one another in love (cf. 5:13) when another falls into sin, surely we should lovingly serve others who simply irritate us or who differ with us on some matter of preference or conviction. Paul has chosen a somewhat extreme case to stress that we should manifest grace in all our relationships.
(6) This passage does not give the Christian a license to meddle in the lives of others. While verses 1 and 2 stress our obligation to minister to others at a point of need, verses 3-5 caution us to “tend to our own knitting” and not to meddle in the lives of others. If this path is followed we will not neglect those things for which we must give account to God. Let us not miss the stress on examining ourselves as we seek to be more responsive to the needs of others.
123 “The precise force … is uncertain: it may mean that he finds himself inadvertently involved in some wrongdoing, or that he is detected in it by someone else.” F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 260.
124 “A paraptoma is not a settled course of action but an isolated action which may make the person who does it feel guilty.” Ibid.
125 It should be noted that the term “burden” in verse 2 is different from that of verse 5. There is a difference between those burdens which we alone must bear and those of others which we must share.
126 From Galatians 2:6, we see a similar expression used with regard to the Jerusalem apostles, whom, the marginal note of the NASB indicates “seemed to be something.” The point is that to “be something” was to be someone special, someone above the level of the hoi polloi. This was the attitude of the legalistic Pharisees (John 7:46-49).
127 There is unfortunately a great deal of sloppy exegesis which is done in support of “discipleship” these days. The first passage which is used is the “great commission” of Matthew 28. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the text does not stress “going” but “making disciples.” What is not pointed out is that this is a command for the church corporately, rather than for each Christian individually. Thus, discipleship has been equated with one man discipling another, rather than with the collective function of the church, which, as a body seeks to build one another up in love. You will note that restoration in Galatians 6:1-5 is also a collective responsibility.
To make matters even worse, Bible teachers move from Matthew 28 to 2 Timothy 2:2, assuming that this passage is also dealing with discipling. I heartily disagree. In the first place, the church (or the disciples collectively) is commanded in Matthew 28, while in 2 Timothy only Timothy is instructed. Secondly, every saint is to be “discipled,” but not everyone is a “faithful man” who is to “teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Paul is talking about something important here, but he is not talking about discipleship in this passage.
I remember hearing the story of a circuit-riding preacher whose attire revealed that he had little of this world’s riches. He, himself, was thin and in less than perfect health. His horse, on the other hand, was sleek and well kept. When a parishioner asked the preacher why he looked so poorly and his horse looked so good, the preacher’s response was, “I look after my horse, but you look after me.”
I am not at ease in approaching the sixth verse of Galatians chapter 6 because it has a very direct bearing on my life and ministry as a teacher of the Scriptures. I hope that you know me well enough to feel confident that I do not wish to use this text to serve my own personal ends. I am sensitive on the subject of sharing with those who teach for the same reason you are—that there are many who, in the name of Christ and Christian ministry, line their own pockets with funds gained from gullible people. While this is a serious problem, it is not the problem underlying our passage.
While I was growing up, we attended a little country church, where a godly pastor faithfully taught the Word of God. I did not appreciate this man and his wife as I should have, probably because of some experiences. For example, on one occasion our youth group had planned a very special event. We were going to a smorgasbord in Tacoma, Washington. We had a lovely meal and then the floor show commenced. The atmosphere of the restaurant was “gay ’90s,” and so the chorus line routine began. I can still remember the horror on the pastor’s face as he physically dragged us out of that place.
What I did not know until much later was that this faithful preacher and his wife were so poorly paid that they used to buy chinchilla meat. Now the fur of a chinchilla is something very special, and the chinchilla coat is highly prized, but so far as a meal is concerned, a chinchilla is simply a close relative of a rat, and without his fur, he is just as appealing.
It is not the self-seeking, money-grabbing minister which is in view in our text, but rather those, like the pastor who had to buy chinchilla meat, whose needs are the problem which this text seeks to correct. There were those in the Galatian churches who had been faithfully proclaiming the Word of God, but who were barely able to make both ends meet. It is this problem, I believe, that caused Paul to speak very candidly about the responsibility of the congregation to minister to the needs of those who teach the Word. This problem, however, is but a symptom of a deeper, underlying problem, that which was characteristic of the Judaizers, and which had contaminated the Galatians.
Our text is problematic. The commentators differ as to how these verses fit together. The subjects of each section are clear, but their relationship is illusive. Verse 6 contains the apostolic instruction to share with those who teach; verses 7-10 deal with the principle of sowing and reaping; and verses 11-17 contrast the motivation of the Judaizers with that of the Apostle Paul. My approach to this text will be a bit unusual. After some introductory comments on verse 6, we will turn to verses 11-17, where we will seek to find the problem underlying the passage. Finally, we will consider the principle of sowing and reaping laid down in verses 7-10, which are Paul’s solution to the problem.
And let the one who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches (Gal. 6:6).
As we begin our study of the passage before us, let me make some preliminary observations concerning verse 6.
(1) No one is better qualified to convey this precept than Paul. The Book of Galatians, unlike most printed material we receive in the mail from Christian ministers and institutions today, does not come with an appeal for funds, accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope in which to send a contribution. Paul is not speaking for himself or for his own personal gain. Paul is speaking for those in the Galatian churches who have needs (burdens) which others have the obligation to help bear. Paul’s practices regarding finances (both his personal funds and those given through him) were beyond reproach (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 1 Cor. 9:4-18; 2 Cor. 8:20-21; 2 Thes. 3:6-11).
(2) The precept of verse 6 prescribes a practical outworking of the principles of verses 1-5. In verses 1-5 of this chapter, Paul has laid down two fundamental principles: (1) Christians must help to bear the burdens of others; and, (2) each Christian must individually bear his own burden. Sharing good things with those who teach us is a very practical way of applying both principles. The responsibility of proclaiming the Word of God was a burden which the Old Testament prophet was to bear (cf. Nah. 1:1; Hab. 1:1; Zech. 9:1; 12:1; Mal. 1:1). As an apostle and teacher of the Word, Paul sensed the preaching of the Word the burden he must bear: “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16).
The other apostles felt the same compulsion, so that they could not obey the command of men to stop preaching Christ (Acts 5:27-32). Preaching and teaching the gospel is thus the special burden of those whom God has gifted and called for this ministry.128 In order for those who have been given this burden to bear it, the body of Christ must support them by bearing some of the burdens pertaining to providing for their material needs. Sharing all good things with those who teach is thus the bearing of the burdens of teachers and enabling them to bear their own burden (of teaching).
(3) In verse 6 Paul does not stress payment for services rendered so much as it does participation in the ministry of the Word of God. There are other passages which deal with the obligation of the church toward those who spend full time in a teaching ministry (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:1-14; 1 Tim. 5:17-18; 2 Tim. 2:3-7), but the emphasis never seems to be simply that of looking at a man’s ministry as a job, for which he is to be paid. There is more to it than just money. For example, in 1 Timothy 5:17 the expression “double honor” certainly calls for a generous provision of salary, but the “double honor” of financial provision conveys as well the esteem and appreciation which are elsewhere called for apart from monetary or material goods (e.g. 1 Thes. 5:12-13; 1 Cor. 16:18).
In Galatians 6:6, the verb form of the term “koinonia,” “fellowship” is translated “share.” While “sharing” in a financial or material way is encouraged in the New Testament, it does not normally include the idea of payment, but of mutual participation in ministry with and to other members of the body of Christ (cp. “contributing,” Rom. 12:13; “contribution,” Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; “sharing,” Heb. 13:16). Thus, the “sharing” of the Philippian church was not merely some kind of payment for Paul’s ministry to them, but a participation in Paul’s ministry to others (cp. Phil. 1:5; 4:15; cf. Matt. 10:40-42). Having “fellowship” materially with those who are in need is a demonstration of our unity and interdependence as members of Christ’s body, the church.
The expression “all good things” also tends to soften any sense of “salary” in this passage. While I realize that in certain societies doctors and preachers have been repaid for their services in chickens and garden produce, the sharing of “all good things” seems to give a broader sense of obligation. Then, too, the principle of “sowing and reaping” in verses 7-10 speaks of “doing good” as an investment. Since “doing good” in the broader context is not earned or merited by the one who is the recipient, we should be cautious about pressing the idea of payment for services rendered on the part of those who teach.
(4) The precept laid down in our passage was not a rigid rule. A little thought will cause us to recognize that the command given here is to those taught, rather than to the teacher. By this I mean that the responsibility to share is that of those who are taught, but this does not justify the teacher’s insisting that he be remunerated, nor that he take a gift which is given. Looking at Paul’s practice, for example, we see that being financially supported was viewed as his right, and thus he was free to waive it in the light of other principles and priorities (cf. 1 Cor. 9:15-23).
Furthermore, not only was the preacher free to minister without cost, but the church was not always obligated to reciprocate or remunerate those who taught. Those who were “false apostles” (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13) or “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4) should surely not be supported in their ministry, for to do so would be to participate in their evil deeds (2 John 10-11).129
More than this, however, there is a more restricted responsibility conveyed in Galatians 6:6. The responsibility here is that of those “who are taught” to those “who teach.” The inference is that we are obligated (in this context, at least, but see also 3 John 5-8) only to those who teach us. Just because a person is a self-proclaimed teacher is no basis for our obligation to him. It is those who have been taught who are obligated to the teacher. Frankly, there are a large number of “teachers” who should not be encouraged because of their shoddy methods and message, even if it is an orthodox one.
Are we obligated, then, to give to everyone who teaches us? I am inclined to think not. In the first place, when Paul worked with his own hands, he would not take money from others, but gave to them (cf. Acts 20:33-35; 2 Thes. 3:8). How can one share with one who won’t accept it? Similarly, the instruction to give those elders “double honor” pertained specifically to those who “worked hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17), which suggests that there were those who were less devoted to preaching and teaching the Word and thus did not need to be supported.
The terms “taught” and “teaches” in verse 6 further support the contention that every teacher need not be salaried or supported. The inference of the Greek term (from which our expression “catechism” is derived) used twice in verse 6 is that of teaching which is both thorough and systematic, of the type Paul speaks of in relation to his ministry among the Ephesians (cp. Acts 19:9-10; 20:18-20).130
(5) There were practical reasons for the practice of this precept, just as there were for setting it aside. Paul often refrained from being supported by others for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:18-23). As an itinerate preacher, Paul, by outward appearances would have been considered just another one of the many religious hucksters who went from town to town, conning the naive out of their money. In the book Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain referred to this as “missionarying.” In order to avoid unnecessary suspicion, Paul supported himself, removing at least one charge against him. In this way, the gospel was enhanced by Paul’s refraining from his right as a preacher of the gospel.
There was a considerable difference, however, between the itinerate ministry of Paul, who was single, and the more long-term ministry of those teachers in the Galatian churches who were most likely married and had families.131 Paul frequently labored “day and night” (2 Thes. 3:8), which would not be advisable for a family man. Paul often was able to live in the home of others (cf. Acts 16:15; 18:3), but this would hardly be advisable for a preacher with a large family. Can you, for example, even conceive of putting up my wife and me, along with our 5 girls, for month after month, year after year? Paul rightly recognized that the growth of the church was dependent, at least in part, upon being consistently and consecutively in the Word of God. If this were so, then the saints would need to assume their responsibility to support those who taught the Word.
(6) Paul had the ability to differentiate between his personal convictions and the principles of the Word of God. I will mention this only in passing, but it is a vitally important quality for one who publicly ministers the Word of God: the ability to distinguish between principle and personal conviction. How easy it would have been for Paul to have advocated that everyone imitate his practice of “tent-making” in order to support himself and thus more effectively proclaim the gospel. Paul realized, however, that his experience was not the norm, and that the church does need teaching which is both consistent and qualitative.
Having said this, let me also point out that there are very few who seem willing to consider Paul’s methodology, feeling that the only significant ministry is that one which has an official position, with a staff title, an office, and a salary. While Paul’s practice was not the norm, it is one which all of us should seriously consider. Just as we should consider staying single in order to be more effective in ministry (cf. 1 Cor. 7:7-9; 25-35), so we should consider secular employment, if it would make us more effective servants of our Lord.
(7) There is a direct relationship between the precept laid down and the “Galatian problem.” The precept of sharing with those who teach is neither accidental nor incidental. This was Paul’s response to a problem which I believe was a direct result of the teaching of the Judaizers. In order to understand how the teaching of the Judaizers resulted in the neglect of those who taught, let us look to the latter part of this chapter for the problem which precipitated Paul’s specific instruction in verse 6.
11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.
It is probably true that little in these final verses of Paul’s epistle is new, but what is written is crucial for it closes Paul’s letter with the essence of the difference between Paul and the Judaizers. The importance of what is written in these verses is underscored by Paul in verse 11. In his day, there were no typewriters or word processors, such as I am using at this very moment. When I wish to emphasize a point, I simply boldface the words, having the printer strike over the letters a certain number of times, or underlining what I have written. Paul did the same thing by taking the pen in hand (possibly taking it from the hand of an amanuensis) and writing what follows with large letters. The effect is to inform the reader of the importance of what is written as well as to remind us of who is writing it.
The issue which Paul makes with the Judaizers is that between the cross of Christ and circumcision. To Paul, the cross was the source of his salvation. More than anything else, the “cross” summarized Paul’s message, while circumcision was the essence of the teaching of the Judaizers. The real reason for this is explained in verses 12-17. Paul gloried (boasted) in the cross of Christ, for it was there that his sins were washed away, borne by the Savior. The gospel which he preached was the message of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17-18, 23; 2:2; Gal. 3:1; 5:11; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 2:8; 3:18; Col. 1:20; 2;14).
To the Judaizers the cross was offensive because it was the cause of their persecution and suffering. To find one’s salvation solely in the cross of Christ was so abominable to the unbelieving Jew that those who thus believed were persecuted. To avoid this persecution, the Judaizers played down the cross and promoted circumcision. This setting aside of the cross for circumcision enabled the Judaizers to gain the praise of the Jews, rather than the persecution which Paul and other Christians experienced.
To Paul, the cross was everything and neither circumcision nor uncircumcision was anything. What really mattered was death to sin (and the Law) and becoming a new creation through what Christ accomplished on the cross (v. 15). The Judaizers took pride in their own circumcision and they boasted in the circumcision of others, even though neither was able to keep the commitment of circumcision, which was to perfectly keep the law of Moses (v. 13). While the mark of circumcision was the Judaizer’s badge of discipleship, the marks on Paul’s body, those of his persecution, were significant to him, for they were evidence of his belonging to Christ (v. 17).
The issue underlying the contrasting views of Paul and the Judaizers toward the cross and circumcision is that of suffering and persecution. The Judaizers knew better than to think that they could actually keep the law (v. 13). All they really wanted to do was to solve the pragmatic problem of Jewish132 persecution. Paul did not enjoy suffering in some masochistic fashion, but he did find joy in suffering, for it enabled him to appreciate his salvation (Gal. 2:20) and to identify with the sufferings of His Savior (cf. Phil. 1:19-30; 3:7-21; Col. 1:24-29).
When you get right down to it, the cross sums it all up. The gospel which saves men is “the word of the cross.” Discipleship is a matter of “taking up one’s cross and following Him” (Matt. 10:38; 16:24; Luke 9:23). When one determines to avoid suffering at all costs, as the Judaizers did, the offense of the cross will lead to exchanging the “word of the cross” for “circumcision” or some other act which pleases men, but which offends God.
Now we can begin to understand why Paul found it necessary to instruct the Galatian saints to support those who ministered the Word of God to them. People pay for goods and services in accordance with the value they attach to them. We will not pay the same price for silver as we will for gold, simply because we value gold more highly. The Judaizers (and some of the Galatian saints as well) placed a very high value on human approval, on the absence of pain and persecution, and on present prosperity. Since the true gospel produced persecution (cf. Acts 14:22; 2 Tim. 3:12; I Peter 2:19-21), and the “different gospel” promised peace and prosperity, it is not difficult to figure out who were the teachers that were most generously supported.
Whether or not the Galatian saints had totally accepted the theology of the Judaizers, they had come to accept much of their thinking. To pay the preacher for teaching them that they would need to suffer for the cause of Christ, that they must “take up their cross” was spending good money on a bad cause. Who wants to pay for hearing about pain and persecution? The principle of verses 7-10 seeks to correct such thinking.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary. 10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
The problem which the Judaizers had with suffering was but a logical outflow of their short-sighted world view. The Judaizers, like most men today, seek to experience pleasure and to avoid pain, for they view life only in terms of what is present and physical. This erroneous world view is corrected by the longer range perception described as a principle of sowing and reaping, which is taught in verses 7-10.
“Sowing and Reaping” is a very common biblical image, which is especially relevant to the problem of the Galatian churches. The following are a few of the factors which make this principle so relevant to the Galatians.
(1) “Sowing and Reaping” stresses the responsibility of the saint without doing a disservice to the sovereignty of God. Paul has previously spoken of the “fruit of the Spirit” in chapter 5. The “fruit of the Spirit” are the produce of God’s grace in the life of the Christian. When Paul speaks of “sowing and reaping” in chapter 6, he places his emphasis on that which we are to do, but in a way that reminds us as well that it is God who gives the fruit. The farmer does not produce grain. He sows grain, he tends the field, and he harvests the grain which God gives. The imagery of farming thus adequately balances the matter of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
(2) “Sowing and reaping” helps us gain an eternal perspective. Sowing and reaping are separated by time. Sowing is the beginning of the process, while reaping is the culmination of it. When the farmer sows his field, he must do so in faith, trusting that all of his efforts will eventually be worthwhile. Nearly everything which the farmer does, he does in the light of what he hopes to be the outcome. So it is with the spiritual life. It is true that, for the present, holding fast to the gospel of God’s grace will often result in present denial and suffering. The principle of sowing and reaping reminds us, however, that our sowing will ultimately be rewarded by our reaping, but that this may only be so when our Lord returns. The preoccupation of the Judaizers with present prosperity and praise was the result of their losing sight (if they ever had it) of eternity.
(3) Paul’s principle of “Sowing and Reaping” reminds us that we will reap what we have “sown.” What is reaped is the result of what is sown. When one sows wheat seed, he expects to reap wheat. Paul employs the image of sowing and reaping to show the direct correlation between what is done in this life and what we reap in eternity. According to Paul, we have but two choices as to what we will sow in this life. We can either sow “to the Spirit” or we can sow “to the flesh.”
Sowing “to the Spirit” is investing our resources in those things which are “spiritual” and thus eternal. This investment is achieved through the Spirit of God, not through the flesh. The reward which is reaped is “eternal life” (v. 8), which I take to include all of the blessings of eternity, in addition to the blessedness of experiencing God’s grace in the present.
The counterpart to “sowing to the Spirit” is “sowing to the flesh” (v. 8). By the emphatic reference to sowing to “his own flesh” (v. 8), Paul underscores the self-centeredness of this pursuit. Sowing to “the flesh” is investing in that which is physical, mortal, and thus passing, rather than eternal. It is the proverbial “going around only once,” “gusto grabbing” of every age. Since this world, along with our earthy bodies, is to be done away with, why are we investing in that which corrupts? Sowing to the flesh is like buying truckloads of potatoes and putting them in a bank vault, hoping to prosper from them in ten years time.
Paul’s reminder that we reap what we sow is a solemn word of warning to those who think that we can be blessed spiritually while living in and to the flesh. What we do in this life has consequences, both for the present and for eternity. To think that we can expect God to bless that which is of the flesh is an insult and an offense to God. How can we possibly expect a righteous and holy God to bless unrighteousness?
(4) The principle of “sowing and reaping” contained the solution to the problem in the Galatian churches, which was evident in their failure to provide for those who taught them. In 1 Corinthians 9:11, Paul taught that since he “sowed” spiritual things among them, he was entitled (a right, however, which he did not claim) to “reap” materially from them. The principle of sowing and reaping which we find in Galatians 6:7-10 is very similar. In this case, however, Paul maintains that sharing “all good things with those who teach the Word” is actually sowing on the part of those who are taught. Not only do they reap the spiritual benefit of the teaching now, but their sharing insures that they will reap benefits eternally. And if someone would dare to object that the teaching they are receiving is not that of present prosperity, Paul would have them know that the present benefits are “peace and mercy” (Gal. 6:16), and “eternal life” (Gal. 6:8), which endures forever.
The way the church presently functions, it is not easy for us to obey Paul’s instruction in verse 6. How long has it been since you personally felt that you had a part in sharing with those who teach you? As a practical matter, it is unfortunate that the payment of preachers has become institutionalized, for it makes it even more difficult for individuals to share with those who teach. While our offerings are used to pay the salaries of those who teach, we, as individuals, feel that we have little part in the process. My advice is that you prayerfully consider ways in which you can personally have a part in response to the teaching of others, which has enriched your life.
The problem of the neglected teachers was detrimental to the ongoing teaching ministry of the Galatian churches, but, much more, was an indication of a wrong orientation and motivation. The “different gospel” of the Judaizers tended to focus almost entirely on the present and on prosperity. The “true gospel” which Paul preached focused upon the cross of Christ, by which men are saved, and of which the saved must partake by taking up their own cross.
I am sad to have to say that this same erroneous orientation and motivation are just as prevalent in the church today as it was in Paul’s day—perhaps even more so! Why is it that many of the messages which are preached and books that are written have “success” as their goal, rather than faithfulness and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and to His Word? Why do we measure success by outward, external standards, and often by the praise of men? It is because we, like the Galatians of old, have become too preoccupied with ourselves and with our present happiness, contentment, and success. This is why those whose message is that of the cross go without, while those whose message is the “good life” prosper. Let us take the principle of sowing and reaping very seriously.
The principle of sowing and reaping applies to us in some very practical ways. In the first place, it should motivate us to be diligent and faithful in our task until the Lord’s return. I find that many Christians begin a ministry with great zeal, only to lose heart. Sometimes it is because no one expresses appreciation or gives any recognition for what they are doing. Sometimes it is because they are criticized for what they are doing. Sometimes it is because they have become bored with their job and want something more exciting, more successful, more significant. The principle of sowing and reaping encourages us to faithfully endure, looking not to the immediate gains, but to those which lie ahead, in the reaping of things spiritual.
The principle of sowing and reaping will give us a new sense of urgency about our tasks as well. On one hand, we see that reaping may be a long time away, but, on the other, we recognize that there is only a limited amount of time to labor, yet an eternity to enjoy the rewards of our labor. While verse 9 stresses the need of endurance, verse 10 emphasizes the urgency of the present task in light of the limited time left. The farmer has but a few days in which he can sow the seed. If this time passes by, it is too late. So, too, the Christian has that same sense of urgency, knowing that when our Lord returns, the time for labor is over. Let us seek to do good, now.
We may wonder just what the “good” which we are to do (with urgency and endurance) is. I have to say that while “good” may include many different things, the one which is most emphasized in our text is that which involves the sharing of our financial resources. Certainly this is one of the primary ways in which those “who are taught” are to “share all good things” with “those who teach.” I believe that just as the “all good things” in verse 6 includes money, so does the “good” which we are to do to all men in verse 10 We have done a fair bit of fancy footwork to avoid our responsibility in the area of social justice, but this passage exposes our hypocrisy.
The thrust of Paul’s words in this text is very similar to that of our Lord when He said, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21). While it is true that we will invest our money where our heart is, it is also true that our heart will be where our treasure is. If we would truly place a high priority on the teaching of the Word of God, we must be willing to “share all good things” with those who proclaim it to us.
I am once again impressed with the importance of the Word of God in the life and growth of the Christian. The reason why Paul can so emphatically instruct Christians to share with those who teach is because he is convinced of the value of the teaching of God’s Word. Let us place a high priority on the teaching of God’s Word as well.
There is a very fundamental difference between the motivation of the Judaizer and the motivation of the one who seeks to sow to the Spirit. The Judaizer is really only concerned with himself, and so he will compromise the gospel, minimize the cross, and place the heavy burden of circumcision and the Law on others in order to make things easy for himself. Paul, on the other hand, and all who would be like him, had the mind of the Master, and thus was willing to take up his cross, in order to serve others. As our Lord put it, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
If there is any one thing which will motivate the Christian to take up his cross it is an appreciation for the cross of Jesus Christ, which He bore for our salvation. Our estimation and appreciation of His cross is often the measure of the cross we are willing to bear for others.
It is my prayer that the cross of Jesus Christ is precious to you because you have found in it (Him) the forgiveness of your sins and the assurance that you are a new creation. It is by the cross that you have died to the Law and its condemnation. It is on the basis of the work of our Lord on the cross that you can be assured of full and final sanctification. And if this is so, then you will also be willing to take up your cross of self-sacrifice and suffering for Christ’s sake, for the sake of others, and for your own sake as well.
Paul’s final word to the Galatian Christians is but a reminder and repetition of the theme of the epistle—the grace of God. There is no more comforting message than that of God’s grace. It is to the grace of God that Paul commends his readers. May we, like them, be overcome with the grace of God to us, and may we manifest that grace to others as we seek to “do good to all men.”133
128 In no way is this statement intended to minimize the imperative for all Christians to proclaim the gospel. It is simply an acknowledgement of differences in spiritual gifts and calling (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-6). For a more detailed explanation, consult the exposition of Galatians 6:3-5 in lesson 17.
129 In 2 John 11:11 the expression “participates” is a translation of the Greek verb “koinoneo.” Just as ministering to those who minister is sharing in that ministry, so supporting the ministry of false teachers is sharing in their evil work.
130 Some may wonder if I am not inconsistent here, for while Paul taught thoroughly and systematically, he also did so while supporting himself (Acts 20:33-35). My response is that he did so “working hard” (20:35), or, as he said to the Thessalonians, “working night and day” (2 Thes. 3:8). Such a ministry may be sustained by a single man for a certain period of time, but it is certainly not the ideal for a family man over the long term.
131 I base my assumption that most of the full-time teachers were married on the fact that in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul speaks of himself and Barnabas as unmarried men as exceptions, rather than the rule (1 Cor. 9:5-6). In addition, the requirements for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 strongly suggest that elders would normally be married and have families.
132 Actually circumcision was a means of avoiding Roman persecution as well as that of the Jews, but Jewish opposition is here in focus. The Roman government viewed Christianity as a faction within Judaism (cf. Acts 18:14-16), and thus to be circumcised was to be regarded by Rome as Jewish, and thus a legal religion. To refuse circumcision thus ran the risk of not only offending the Jew, but of being regarded by Rome as a member of an illegal religious sect.
133 The same Greek term, rendered “good,” is found in verses 6 and 10. The “good” of verse 9 is a different term, but it has essentially the same sense. The fact that “doing good” involves sharing in a financial or material way is also seen in Hebrews 13:16.