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.”