TEXT: Galatians 5:1-12

SUBJECT: Exposition of Galatians #11: The Call to Freedom

The theme of this Epistle is "Salvation is by Christ alone, and is therefore obtained by faith alone". Salvation can be understood either narrowly or broadly. Either as justification and conversion or as "the whole enchilada"--including sanctification and glorification. Paul--I'm convinced--uses it in the wider sense. He wants us to know, quite simply, that "Jesus Saves". The Law does not. It does not make us acceptable to God; it does not make us holy; it does not give us a place among the Lord's people--in this world or the next. Like the disciples on Holy Mount, Paul opened his eyes, and

"Saw no man any more,

save Jesus only".

In the first four chapters, Paul makes his argument. In chapter five and six, he applies them. The verses before us can be divided into two parts, albeit somewhat overlapping: In vv.1-6, Paul gives a ringing endorsement to freedom. In vv.7-12, he bitterly chides the foes of freedom. Let's look at each in turn.

First, Paul's endorsement of freedom, v.1: "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage". To "stand fast" means just that: Don't waver in your own mind and don't let anyone bully you into doing what he wants you to do". Why? Because "Christ has made us free". The freedom He gives is not a potential liberty, but an actual one. His people are free! They're not free because they feel free; they're not free because the pastor allows them to be free; they are free because Christ has liberated them. And no one can undo His liberating work.

Because we are free, we must not "be entangled again with a yoke of bondage". What is this "yoke of bondage"? One commentator calls is "the yoke of sin and guilt". He goes on to insist, "this does not refer to the Mosaic Law". That is a classic case of eisegesis--the importing of personal theology (even if it's true) into the text of Scripture. I can only wish the Protectionists would slap a heavy tariff on these imports! The word "bondage" has appeared in the immediate context, hasn't it? In 4:24, we're told that some people are in "bondage". Who are they? Thieves, liars, murderers? No, but the people of Jerusalem who are bound to Mount Sinai. Moreover, in 5:2, this "bondage" is identified with "circumcision" and all it entails, the Mosaic Law.

Paul is making it plain: Believers in Christ are free from the obligation to keep the Mosaic Law. We're not free to sin, as he later tells us, but we are free from the Law of Moses. But don't worry: Christ will provide us something to take the Law's place--something better (that too will come up later).

Having endorsed freedom from the Law, Paul goes on to explain why we mustn't become "entangled" in it, vv.2-6: "Indeed, I Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we, through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love".

The first reason we mustn't be tangled up in the Law is also the most important: "If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing". In this place (as v.3 makes clear), circumcision is shorthand for "the Law". Thus: If you seek God's favor by Law-keeping, you lose the benefit of Christ's saving work. God won't allow you to pursue Him in two ways: through Christ and through the Law. You have to make up your mind. If you choose Law, you'll have to save yourself, our Lord won't do it for you.

The second reason we mustn't become tangled up in the Law is this: The Law is a package deal. One becomes "a debtor to keep the whole Law". St. Tomas Aquinas divided the Law into Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. The latter two--he said--have passed away; the former remains intact. Many Christians agree with Tomas; I don't. Why not? The divisions are arbitrary. Moses didn't divide them; our Lord didn't; none of the Apostles did. And no one else can either! Paul says just the opposite: He takes what most believe to be a ceremonial law (circumcision) and links it to every other law. Therefore, if you accept the principle: "I must observe the Mosaic Law"--you must observe it all! To willfully wear a polyester shirt is no less a rebellion than to worship an idol! If some of the Mosaic Law is binding on the believer, so is the rest of it.

The third reason we mustn't become tangled up in the Law is equally biting: To seek your salvation in the Mosaic Law is to alienate yourself from Christ and from the grace of God that is in Him alone, v.4. The Legalists had it all wrong. They believed that Law-keeping would provide a second channel of grace. Paul says the opposite: It clogs up the first channel of grace, our Lord Jesus.

In vv.5-6, Paul sums up his position. It can be reduced to the following points:

This brings his first paragraph to an end. He has ringingly endorsed the life of faith.

In the verses that follow, however, Paul writes more roughly than he has before.

He begins with a rhetorical question and partially answers it himself, vv.7-8: "You ran well, who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you". Under the preaching of Paul, the Galatians began running the Christian life with speed and grace. They could sing,

"Free from the law, O happy condition,

Jesus has bled, and there is remission".

But lately, they've been tripping all over each other. Why? Because they started listening to men instead of "the One who called [them]"--Christ. Legalism was not delivering on its promise: it wasn't making them wiser or holier. It was turning them into spiritual bumblers. Paul didn't like it; he let them know.

In v.9, he reminds them of the influence of Legalism. "A little leaven leavens the whole lump". Accept a pinch of Legalism, and soon, it will affect your whole life and the life of the church. Paul doesn't have to prove that to us; we've seen it far too often than we'd like. I've felt it in my heart and seen it in this church. The Lord save us from it.

Paul is very upset with his friends; he's worried about them too. But he's not in despair. According to v.10, he's quite hopeful that they'll see the error of their ways and escape the judgment that's sure to fall on the Legalists. "I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is". How can he be so hopeful? Is he an incurable optimist? No he's not. But he does believe that union with Christ will have an effect. Hence, he feels good about "you, in the Lord".

This offhand remark should help us to understand and assist our brethren who are in error. We should help them to see the way of Christ more clearly. This is done by teaching, by exhortation, by reproof, and so on. But as they sit by as block-headed as ever, we ought to remember that it is only Christ who can persuade them of the truth. This will increase you patience ten-fold, and keep you from choking the numskulls who just don't get it.

In v.11 Paul offers a brief defense of himself with a startling proof. "And I brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased". The Legalists, it seems, were charging Paul with being "two-faced". To the Gentiles he revokes the Law of Moses; to the Jews, he upholds it. How could they make such an outlandish claim. Here's how: Paul circumcised Timothy but refused it for Titus. Does it follow, then, that he's a hypocrite? No. Why not? If he is, he's an awfully unconvincing one. He hasn't fooled anybody. For, had he preached up the Law of Moses, he would have been a hero in Judaism. Was he? No. He still "suffered persecution" because it is the cross--and not the Law--that is hopelessly offensive. Paul's persecution at the hands of the his kinsmen, therefore, prove he's exalting Christ alone.

Finally, he comes to what Dr. Betz calls "a joke of stark sarcasm", v.12: "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" The circumcisers were cutting off foreskins, Paul wishes would go further and neuter themselves! Why? Maybe a reduced testosterone level would cause them to quit harassing the brethren who want to glory in nothing but

"The cross of Christ".

What can we say that Paul hasn't already said--and much better? Nothing. We can only reiterate his warning. Beware of trusting the Law. It never made anyone right with God. It never made anyone holy. It never gave anyone a place among the Lord's people. It never brought anyone to glory. It never has. It never will. It never can. But we're not to despair, for "What the Law could not do", God did, by "sending His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who are under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons".

Therefore, look to Christ for your "wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption". Because, in the end,

Christ is All.