Galatians 5:7-12 – Wrapping It Up

As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

⁷You were running well. Who cut in [on] you to not be obeying the truth? ⁸This persuasion [is] not out of the one calling you. ⁹‘A little leaven leavens the whole lump’. ¹⁰I am persuaded concerning you in the Lord that you will think nothing differently but the one troubling you, whoever he is, will bear the judgment. ¹¹But, brethren, if I am yet preaching circumcision, why am I yet being persecuted? Consequently the scandal of the Cross is negated. ¹²O that the ones opposing you would castrate themselves!

Concerning this passage of Scripture, there are a number of observations I’d like to record. As always, if someone reading this wants an actual commentary on the passage, there are hundreds available. My intent is simply to record things that stood out to me.

Paul is beginning to wrap up his arguments in this book. On the whole, it is notable to realize that Paul is in an emotional froth. If you read the passage carefully and thoughtfully, you will quickly realize it is seriously not linearly logical. It is, in a sense, a series of emotional ejaculations all gathered in a heap. What that means is that, when we go to try and understand what Paul is saying, we aren’t necessarily following a flow of logic. In a sense, each sentence is an individual expression. Each one is certainly deeply rooted in what Paul has been saying for five chapters; they just aren’t necessarily in any logical order.

Verse 7 is interesting to me, especially having been a runner myself for forty years. Paul says, “You were running well. Who cut in on you?” There is quite a variety of translations trying to express the Greek verb I have translated “cut in.” The word basically means to hinder, to impede, etc., so it certainly and legitimately could be translated many ways. However, in my own runner’s mind, there is no question what is the image in Paul’s mind. To have someone “cut in” is almost too familiar to a runner. You’re going along at a good speed heading for a great finish, then suddenly someone trying to pass you “cuts in” too early, your feet get tangled, and down you go. If you’re lucky, you find yourself “rolling through” it, almost like a somersault, bounding back up and continuing down the course. But most of the time you just end up flat on your face while the rest of the runners fly by. Usually it is the end of the race for you. I’ve watched it happen in the Olympics and it’s happened to me personally too many times. Since the context of the sentence is running, then, as a runner, I don’t think there’s any question that is Paul’s image. The Galatians were running a good race. But someone “cut in” on them and now he sees his beloved friends flat on their faces, struggling to get back up, and now way behind in a race they could have won.

On a purely technical note, I observe that verses 7, 8, and 10 each contain words which appear to be based on the root verb πειθώ. In v7, it occurs as a Present M/P Infinitive almost universally translated “obey.” In v8, it is a nominative feminine singular noun, usually translated “persuasion.” In v10, it is a Perfect Active Indicative usually translated “am persuaded” or “am confident.” What intrigues me is that of all the commentaries I consulted, only John Calvin felt compelled to justify his translation in v7 as “obey.” Actually if the word is “obey,” the root in v7 would be πειθομαι, not πειθώ. If it is πειθώ,  then it technically means “to persuade.” which would be consistent with the “persuasion” of v8 and the “am persuaded” of v10. The fact that Paul used (apparently) the same root three times in four verses would lead you think he had “persuade” in mind in v7, which then would lead him (even unconsciously) to “persuasion” words in the verses immediately following. If in fact v7 is πειθώ, in agreement with vv 8 and 10, then the sentence should probably be translated something like, “Who cut in [on] you to not be being persuaded [of the] the truth?” Then it would linguistically make perfect sense for him to inject, “This persuasion [is] not out of the one calling you,” and “I am persuaded concerning you…” In the end, I don’t think it matters to the sense of the verse. I guess I’m mainly just surprised that no one seemed to notice it. I go ahead and translate it “obey” partly to satisfy the lemming deep inside me, but also because it makes more sense in English. If you are persuaded, you will “obey” the persuasion. So perhaps there is no real difference practically speaking. But then again, that is the business of exegesis, the business of όρθοτομουντα, “cutting straight,” or “rightly dividing” the Word of Truth. I just want to know exactly what God said (and what He didn’t say) before I begin to draw conclusions and try to let His thoughts mold mine.

Interesting too that Paul returns once again to the subject of “truth.” Philosophically speaking, the presuppositional worldview behind everything Paul is saying is his belief that there is objective truth. There is true truth. The Galatians are deviating from true truth. To do so will be at least frustrating and potentially fatal. Of course today we live in a world that tells us there is no truth. Kant and Nietzsche would have us believe our “truth” is simply a collection of perceptions we have gathered based on our own unique history, experience, culture, etc., so that everyone’s truth is just as true as everyone else’s. The problem with this, of course, is if it is true that everyone’s “truth” is just as true as everyone else’s, then in reality nothing is truly true. Life itself is a mirage. Nothing at all can be known. One can only have perceptions but those can’t really be valid because validity itself is only a perception.

Against all of that subjective demoralizing befuddlement, the Bible opens with the statement, “In the beginning, God …” Before there even were humans to “perceive,” there was an objective reality: God. God was there. He was who He was. What was true of Him was purely true, completely independent of anyone else’s perception. He created human beings into a universe of preexisting truth. Truth was there before we were. As Mark Twain said, “The world owes you nothing. It was here first.” The bottom line is that because God is, there is truth. There is true truth and, while we must “perceive” it, it is not the product of our perceptions but rather the subject. If our perception is in error, then we are wrong.

As I mentioned above, to be wrong is at least frustrating and potentially fatal. If I believe by putting my car in reverse it will go forward, I am destined for trouble. Life will only “work” is I accept that, whether I like it or not, if I want to go forward I must put my car in drive. That is true truth and it stands objectively outside of my perceptions. Ultimately, the reason why I must submit to true truth is because there is God. There is objective reality.

While the philosophers philosophize, we scientists just go on seeking to unlock the “secrets” of the universe. As an engineer, and it is true for all real science, the entire foundation of our field is the belief that the universe is run by “laws” which govern reality. F=ma. The point of the scientific method is to propose truth (offer a hypothesis), then to so design and conduct an experiment as to discover what is truly true. If you want to know how big your water pipe should be, all you have to tell me is how much water you want to run through it and how far. I can “size” your pipe for you. Why? Because others before me investigated the truths of hydraulic flow, recognized the laws that govern it, and thus were able to arrive at equations which accurately predict it. When it comes to water flow, there is true truth. And when you need to size water pipes, if you know the truth, the truth shall set you free … to accurately size water pipes.

Back to Paul and our passage, it is precisely because there is true truth that Paul is in such an emotional frenzy over the Galatians. They had embraced the truth and were “running well” in it. But now they are deviating from that truth. To embrace a world of law rather than grace is to embrace error. It will at least be frustrating. It will be frustrating because it will not “work.” The Galatians want to be happy. They want to have happy families, good relationships, be successful in their work, and so on. But to embrace legalism will make them critical, judgmental people. It will create dissension in their church as everyone champions their own version of “the rules.” It will hurt their families as their children see through the hypocrisy and think they’re turning away from God when in reality they’re turning away from someone else’s misperception of who God is. In the long run, of course, legalism will so supplant grace that people will think they’re born again because they “keep the rules” and never realize they’ve not been born again. As has been said before, hell will be full of people who fell off supposedly Bible-believing church pews.

Grace and grace alone is true. To believe anything else is not to obey (or “be persuaded of”) the truth. And, again, in the short run it will be frustrating. In the long run it can be (eternally) fatal.

I find I have a lot of other thoughts that arise from this passage. But this blog is long enough, so I’ll post it and come back again.

Galatians 5:2-6 – It Can’t Be Both

As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

²Behold, I, Paul, say to you that Christ will benefit you nothing if you are circumcised; ³and, again, I declare to every man who is being circumcised that you are obligated to do the whole law. ⁴Whoever being justified in law, you are rendered useless from Christ; you are fallen from grace. ⁵For we by [the] Spirit out of faith are eagerly waiting for [the]hope of righteousness; ⁶for, in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision enables anything but, [rather], faith expressing itself through love.

As always, I’m really glad I got to actually study this passage. I finally feel like I understand what Paul is saying and that understanding, of course, is reflected in my chosen title, “It Can’t Be Both.” After having completed four chapters of pleas, arguments, and illustrations, Paul is wrapping up his “case for grace,” so to speak. Grace and law are mutually exclusive. You cannot mix them. It is for freedom Christ has set us free. To embrace any aspect of legalism is to miss it all, to miss the whole point, the whole point of life, the whole point of a relationship with God.

This absolute bifurcation (and the sad and nearly universal tendency of us humans to miss it) is the reason for Paul’s seemingly abrupt and even harsh language: “Christ will benefit you nothing … obligated to do the whole law … useless from Christ … fallen from grace …” We must understand this vigorously absolute context if we would understand the passage correctly. What I mean is illustrated in the opening statement, “Christ will benefit you nothing if you are circumcised.” Obviously Paul is not saying that all circumcised people go to hell. Rip the sentence out of its context and that is exactly what it does say! “Christ will benefit you nothing if you are circumcised.” Seems pretty clear. But one must read it in its context. Obviously, that is not what Paul means. He was himself a circumcised Jew and even had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). His obvious point, in context, is to establish the case that, if you embrace a rite of legalism as essential to your relationship with God, then you are thereby saying you do not need grace, hence you do not need Christ.

As he goes on to say, “I declare to every man who is being circumcised that you are obligated to do the whole law”.  That is the problem. If you must keep a certain “rule” in order to have a relationship with God, then you must keep all of the rules. I remember a family that read in the OT that God required His people to keep the Feast of Tabernacles and actually, once a year, build a shelter of sticks in their yard and spend a night in it. So this family determined that they really should do that. I’m sure the kids enjoyed it, but the obvious question would be, “Where does it stop?” If a Christian family should keep the Feat of Tabernacles, why shouldn’t they also keep Passover, and all the rest of the legal minutiae of the OT?

Chrysostom said it well back in about 400 AD: “Legal observances are linked together. For example; Circumcision has sacrifice connected with it, and the observance of days; sacrifice again has the observance both of day and of place; place has the details of endless purifications; purifications involve a perfect swarm of manifold observances. For it is unlawful for the unclean to sacrifice, to enter the holy shrines, to do any other such act. Thus the Law introduces many things even by the one commandment. If then thou art circumcised, but not on the eighth day, or on the eighth day, but no sacrifice is offered, or a sacrifice is offered, but not in the prescribed place, or in the prescribed place, but not the accustomed objects, or if the accustomed objects, but thou be unclean, or if clean yet not purified by proper rules, everything is frustrated”. 

Read his last sentence again and feel the frustration of trying to keep the law! Seriously, as soon as you start, there is no end of it. But that is exactly what a person is buying when they embrace even one tenet of legalism. You hear the same sentiment from Martin Luther who wrote, “The fact that you are circumcised does not mean you are righteous and free from the Law. The truth is that by circumcision you have become debtors and servants of the Law… The truth of this I have experienced in myself and in others. I have seen many work themselves down to the bones in their hungry effort to obtain peace of conscience. But the harder they tried the more they worried. Especially in the presence of death they were so uneasy that I have seen murderers die with better grace and courage ... When I was a monk I tried ever so hard to live up to the strict rules of my order. I used to make a list of my sins, and I was always on the way to confession, and whatever penances were enjoined upon me I performed religiously. In spite of it all, my conscience was always in a fever of doubt. The more I sought to help my poor stricken conscience the worse it got. The more I paid attention to the regulations the more I transgressed them. Hence those that seek to be justified by the Law are much further away from the righteousness of life than the publicans, sinners, and harlots. They know better than to trust in their own works. They know that they cannot ever hope to obtain forgiveness by their sins”. He went on to write, “Some would like to subjugate us to certain parts of the Mosaic Law. But this is not to be permitted under any circumstances. If we permit Moses to rule over us in one thing, we must obey him in all things”.  

I often read different authors trying to decide which parts of the OT Law Jesus actually abrogated. I myself once reasoned that we were freed from the ceremonial law but that the moral law was still binding. What I and they totally didn’t understand is that such a discussion only exposes our ignorance. If we’re still deciding “which rules we have to keep,” then the real truth is we do not yet understand grace. That, again, is Paul’s point. It can’t be both. Either grace or law. Not some convenient mingling. Not. Period. How much clearer can he make it? The question I have to ask is, “Do I really understand this absolute bifurcation? Am I willing to give up my favorite “rules” and admit they gain me no standing before God? That every minute of every day my acceptance with God is grace business, not law?

I think if we are all honest, we will find this a very uncomfortable point of inquiry. I remember when I first began to realize the truth of this. Giving up all my favorite “rules” left me feeling naked spiritually. If my “faith” isn’t about all my rules, then what is it? How do I measure my success? It was so easy as a legalist. If I buy a coat and tie, get my hair cut, carry my Bible, go to church every service, volunteer for this and that … then obviously I’m spiritual and not only I but all my friends can see it too. Very convenient and comfortable. But what if none of that really matters? Then what does?

Back to the passage itself, once again, it is important to remember this absolute bifurcation is the context of this passage. Realizing this explains Paul’s statement, “You are fallen from grace.” The statement, in and of itself, if ripped from its context is scary. Just like, “If you are circumcised, Christ will benefit you nothing.” As discussed above, that statement must be understood in its context. This one is no different. “Fallen from grace!” Ye gads, if it’s even possible then I’m altogether lost! Paul has made the statement, “If you are justified by law, then you are fallen from grace.” First of all, you cannot be justified by law. To even suggest it is hypothetical. But then hypothetically speaking, if you can be justified by law then you are fallen from grace. But, in fact, neither is possible. You can’t be justified by law, so you can’t fall from grace. If you could, you would, but you can’t, so you shan’t. The point is why try.

It can’t be both. Rather, as Paul says, “We by Spirit out of faith are eagerly waiting for the hope of righteousness.” Ours is not a life of “keeping the rules” but instead of “walking in the Spirit.” It is by faith (literally “out of” faith) that righteousness becomes reality for us. It is by faith alone in Christ’s righteousness that I become righteous before God and will be presented righteous to Him in Heaven. And I can only experience real righteousness here on earth if I am walking in the Spirit, allowing faith to inform my thoughts and words and actions, to change my heart, to actually allow me live out the image of God in me. It’s not about the rules. Our “hope of righteousness” is not and cannot be based on our ability to somehow “live out the rules.” It’s either Grace or Law. It cannot be both.

As Paul concludes, “In Christ, neither circumcision not uncircumcision enables anything but rather faith expressing itself through love.” Oh. “Faith expressing itself through love.” Strip away all the rules and what is left of my relationship with God? Only this simple question, “Do you love?” Yes or no? Has your professed faith actually changed your fundamental attitude toward God and the people around you? Yes or no? The Pharisees had all the rules figured out. But there wasn’t an ounce of love in their hearts. I like what Albert Barnes said: “It is not a mere intellectual belief; but it is that which reaches the heart … It is not mere belief of the truth, or mere orthodoxy … true faith is that which is seen in benevolence, in love to God … in a readiness to do good to all mankind. This shows that the heart is affected by the faith that is held … A mere intellectual assent to the truth may leave the heart cold and unaffected; mere orthodoxy, however bold, and self-confident and ‘sound’ may not be inconsistent with contentions, and strifes, and divisions.”

I like too what Matthew Henry said: “[What matters is] a faith in Christ which reveals itself by a sincere love to God and our neighbor … Faith, where it is true, is a working grace; it works by love, love to God and love to our brethren, and faith, thus working by love, is all in all in our Christianity.”

Real faith doesn’t make me love the rules. It makes me love God and love people.

It is the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. The Pharisees kept all the rules but earned Jesus’ censure for their “hardness of heart.” Jesus offended them because He didn’t keep “the rules” but His love drew to God the hearts of tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. Jesus was “full of grace and truth.”

Grace or law? It cannot be both. Absolute bifurcation. Jesus or Pharisee?

“My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;

I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name.”

Galatians 4:21-5:1 – Slavery and Freedom

As usual, here’s my fairly literal translation of these verses:

²¹Tell me, ones desiring to be under law, do you not hear the law? ²²For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. ²³But, on the one hand, the one out of the slave woman was born according to flesh, [while] on the other hand, the one out of the free woman [was born] through promise.

²⁴These are an allegory, for they are two covenants. On the one hand, one [is] from Mt. Sinai giving birth into slavery, which is Hagar, ²⁵and this Hagar is Mt. Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶On the other hand, the above Jerusalem, which  is [the] mother of us, is free, ²⁷for it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one, the one not having children, the one not giving birth, break forth and exclaim, because many are the children of the desolate one rather than the one having the husband.”

 ²⁸And we, brethren, are children of promise, according to Isaac, ²⁹but just as the one born according to flesh was then persecuting the one [born] according to spirit, thus also now. ³⁰But what does the Scripture say?

“Cast out the slave woman and the son of hers, for the son of the slave woman will never inherit with the son of the free woman”.

 ³¹Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of slavery but of the free woman. ^5:1Christ freed us to the freedom, therefore be standing firm and do not be being bound again to a yoke of slavery.

I’m really glad I finally got a chance to actually study this passage. I have of course read it over and over through the years, but I would have to say I’ve always found it a little intimidating. Paul clearly and specifically identifies the Sarah/Hagar account as an allegory and, if I may add, a rather detailed one at that. It leaves one wondering, “Where are all the other ‘allegories’ in the Bible?” Does this mean we should go back through the OT and look for an allegory in every story that’s told? Who did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego really represent and what was the significance that David selected five smooth stones and on and on, ad nauseum. I think that unanswered question is what always left me feeling a little intimidated by the passage.

What to make of this? Of course the blanket explanation of it all is that Paul is writing under inspiration. If the Holy Spirit intended Sarah and Hagar’s experience as an allegory, He is certainly free to explain it to us through Paul. Since I don’t write under inspiration, I must limit my understanding of the Bible to what is clearly presented. In this case, we are told that it was an allegory. When it comes to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, I may find interesting parallels, but I could never say with authority, “This is an allegory, and Shadrach stands for this, etc.”

I would suggest it to be spiritually presumptuous to take this one passage and, based on it, to run through the Bible declaring allegories wherever my supposedly sanctified imagination found them. Apparently that has been a problem down through the centuries. Luther said, “[Allegories] are dangerous things. Unless a person has a thorough knowledge of Christian doctrine he had better leave allegories alone.”

Then I like what Luther went on to say, “Allegories are not very convincing, but like pictures they visualize a matter … Having first fortified his case with invincible arguments, [Paul] can afford to inject the allegory to add impressiveness and beauty to his presentation.”

“Allegories are not very convincing.” I think Luther is right and herein would be some wisdom, I think. It would be far better for us to study the Bible to mine the clear truth it presents, than to spend our time looking for allegories. As Luther says, “They are not very convincing anyway.” I certainly would never change my life for some “truth” I imagined I found in an allegory. The allegory can only, as in Paul’s case, illustrate truth already presented “with invincible arguments.” Only rightly divided truth bears on my heart and makes me different.

For whatever it’s worth, before I leave the matter, I want to assert that looking for practical applications is an entirely different business from looking for allegories. The Bible is a book of discipleship and I believe we should read every line with a heart longing to see the world through God’s eyes, to learn from other people’s lives as we observe the choices they make and God’s evaluations thereof. As it says in I Corinthians 10:6-11, “⁶Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. ⁷Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”  ⁸ We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. ⁹We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. ¹⁰ And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. ¹¹ These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the end of the ages has come.”

I think this is something entirely different than looking for allegories, trying to find “secret” truths, which will only prove to the rest of the world how smart I am …and do nothing to make me a sweeter, more humble, Christ-like person.

So if the Holy Spirit, in Scripture, declares something to be an allegory, wonderful. So it is. Beyond that, I should spend my time mining for the clearly presented truth. Then when I see the lives of the people of the Bible illustrating that truth, I should take heed to their example. But beyond that, I officially accept that it is the truth that matters and not my imaginations.

The other thing that I find interesting is Paul’s observation, “… just as the one born according to flesh was then persecuting the one [born] according to spirit, thus also now.” I suppose it is a maxim of note that the Law will always persecute the Spirit. I actually don’t mean that exactly but you get my drift – those who are of the law, legalists, will always persecute those who enjoy the freedom of real Holy Spirit-filled life. Even in the secular world, the people who guard “the rules,” cannot bear people who actually live for the goals. People are forever making up rules to “help” the rest of us accomplish our goals. But having done so, they immediately lose all ability to see the goals and care only for their rules. I realized some time ago that even at work goals are far more important than rules and that sometimes you actually have to break the rules to accomplish the goals. But what I also realized is that doing so exposes you to the wrath of the rule-keepers who usually have the authority to punish you in one way or another when you do break their rules. Never mind that what you did actually accomplished the goal. As my old boss often said, “No good turn goes unpunished.” Jesus’ most bitter enemies were not the Romans but rather the “religious” Jews. Through the book of Acts there are only a couple of instances where the Apostles got in trouble with the secular people. It was almost always the “religious” Jews who opposed them or stirred up the secular people to oppose them. The whole matter is somewhat of a paradox to me right now but it is interesting to note Paul’s “even so now.”

Finally, I love the opening verse of chapter 5: “It is for freedom Christ has set us free.” Reminds me of “And when you know the truth, the truth shall set you free,” and “And if the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed!” Interestingly, this morning I laid down this study, headed to church and our pastor’s message was “beware of false freedom.” His point was solidly out of Gen 3 and supported by the passage from II Peter 2:19, “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.” I suppose it would be worth an entire post just to distinguish between the freedom Christ gives and the false “freedom” that sin allures people with. Don’t know if I’ll wade into that but I certainly enjoy the real freedom I have in Christ. It is a freedom even to study a passage like Galatians 4:21-5:1 knowing when I’m done I’ll be glad I did … and I am!