|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Galatians
Chapter 5
return to the main-page article on Galatians
[Prefatory note: The Authorized (King James) Version, unless otherwise indicated, is employed herein, featured, most notably, in bold type as plenary verses and, at times, as key words and phrases.]
A Survey and Critical Analysis of Galatians 5
Lincoln once commented that the “world has never had a good definition of liberty” and that Americans, in his day, were “much in want of one.” The apostle Paul, in principle, might have agreed with this assessment. His critics in Galatia seemed to define freedom as license – something risky, dangerous, even ungodly. Having just discussed the nature and limitations of Old Covenant law, Paul now prepares to soar with eagles as he introduces this final section of his letter, “the crown of the book” (Cole 137). He is about to expound a view of freedom that shook - yes, even split - the early church; a transcendental view of God and life that would impact not only first century society but our world today as well.
5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
A seemingly abrupt introductory statement with its “lack of transitional phrase,” this sentence, according to Longenecker, is linked primarily not to the preceding verse but serves as “summary of all that Paul has argued [. . .] from 1:6 through 4:31” (224).
Christ hath made us free. “Christ set us free, to be free men” (The New English Bible 856); “Christ has set us free to live a free life” (Peterson 397).
Stand fast [. . .] be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. “So take your stand! Never again let anyone put a harness of slavery on you” (Peterson 397).
liberty. What is this notion of freedom that Paul hammers upon? One might say that his entire writing thus far serves as preamble to this important concept.
In chapters one and two, Paul, in the main, sets before his detractors his own history in Christ, an argument founded upon personal experience.
In chapters three and four, Paul, the lawyer, offers his technical, theological position, one based upon scriptural exegesis.
But in this final section Paul speaks from the heart – a heart set free and bursting. He now begins to finally defuse his gainsayers’ primary attack, one introduced in chapter two: “Without the law, with only faith to guide them, the people will run wild.” “No! No!” we can hear Paul say: “That may have been true under the old Jewish system, but life in the Spirit,” as we shall see, “is nothing like that!” Old-style Jewish law and Christ’s law (6. 2) have about as much in common as Mark Twain’s lightning and lightning bug.
Now in his closing appeal, Paul wants us to understand, above all else, that the freedom offered by the Good News, the freedom from external restraint and prodding - the freedom of life in Christ - offers to humankind the inward, personal change that Judaism and other legalistic systems had failed to deliver.
As we venture further into Paul’s line of reasoning, we must especially keep in mind his teaching of the previous two chapters where he speaks of those living “under law,” that is, those constrained and hampered by rule-bound religion. It is this kind of spiritual confinement that Paul has in mind when he uses, in verse one, the term, “yoke of bondage;” and it is the release from such condition that prompts the Apostle of Grace to employ the word “liberty,” that wonderful word which demagogues love to spin as something evil.
5. 2-4. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
There are those who claim that Paul here is merely railing against particular Jewish rituals, an assertion designed to render the apostle’s charge an anachronism, a period-piece, an irrelevant bit of ecclesiastical history with no practical application today. Such allegation misses the point, not only of Paul’s argument within the immediate context but that of his entire letter.
Behold, I Paul say unto you. “I am emphatic about this” (Peterson 397).
circumcised. Paul addresses the issue of ritualistic cutting, not, as some suggest, because he views this specific element of Judaism as particularly offensive; rather, Paul employs this thoroughly Old-Covenant term to symbolize the Jews’ entire ritualistic system, even, according to the legalists, the single most important thing a person could do to gain salvation. (The reader is referred to a more complete discussion at 2. 3.)
Christ shall profit you nothing [. . .] no effect unto you [. . .] fallen from grace. It is unlikely that, here, Paul speaks to his critics’ ultimate doom and disbarment from salvation. A subject he will address again (1 Cor. 3. 15), heaven, we may safely presume Paul understands, will be a most sparsely settled land, indeed, if its inhabitants represent only those possessing a perfect knowledge of the ways of God.
No, the good apostle, in the present context, is intent upon merely drawing distinction between law-men and grace-men, those who intend to work their way into God’s favor and those who, understanding their own frailty, rely on mercy as basis for their relationship with the Divine.
Paul is simply saying this: “You can’t have it both ways – either you’re saved by law or by grace. You cannot purport to ‘accept Christ,’ an admission that you cannot save yourself, and then turn around and glory in the law, a contradictory assertion proclaiming that you can impress God with your own efforts. It doesn’t work that way. You must either keep the entire law, in all of its minutia, every second of the day, for your entire life, and never slip-up once, or you must surrender to God’s mercy and allow Christ to heal you from the inside-out. There really is no middle ground.”
5. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
For we. "we is so strongly adversative that it is not incorrect to interpret it as we Christians" (Cole 141); "The KJV follows the Greek in making the we emphatic, contrasting the Christians as men of faith with the Judaizers as men of law” (Stamm 548).
wait [. . .] by faith. “We do not work for it; we wait for it, by faith” (Stott 134).
justified by the law (verse 4) [. . .] righteousness by faith. Stamm helpfully points out that, in the Greek, the English words, justified and righteousness, stem from the same root. The sense of Paul’s statement becomes this: “You ‘law-men’ seek to be made righteous (declared 'not guilty') by the law; we Christians seek to be made righteous (declared 'not guilty') by faith.”
5. 6. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
"For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is something far more interior: faith expressed in love” (Peterson 397). Peterson, understanding that “circumcision” is a code-word for Judaism and, in a larger sense, all legalistic religious systems, presents to us the unvarnished essence of Paul’s argument: “Christianity, at its heart, is not a ‘religion’ – at least, not in terms of the usual definition of that word; Christianity is primarily a faith-union with a Divine Person, the outward expression of which is a life of love and service toward mankind.”
With this salvo, Paul begins to answer the charge, “Without the law, the people will run wild.” Paul will have none of this kind of trash-talk: “If you are ‘in Jesus Christ,’ if you allow Him to perfect your spirit, you will not ‘run wild’ because you will not want to run wild – your very heart will begin to change, a transformation that Judaism could never offer.”
Paul’s definition of freedom slowly emerges and begins to take shape. His brand of freedom, we will find, is not the freedom from the struggle against sin, not the freedom that turns grace into license; rather, it is the freedom from debilitating guilt, from an unburdened conscience, from needing to do anything to make God love us. Paul's "liberty," in which we are to "stand fast," is the freedom from the Old Covenant system, or any system of legalism – any external restraint or prodding designed to encourage morality -- which would become a substitute for Christ in us. It is the liberty of the spiritually mature man or woman, a condition of wholeness, says Paul, toward which the Jewish Law could only point but never touch.
5. 7-10. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Paul enlists a common proverb of the day to make a point; he believes that, just as a small amount of yeast will permeate an entire batter of dough, a little legalism, left unchecked, will eventually contaminate the entire spiritual life of the Church.
he that troubleth you [. . .] whosoever he be. “Paul may not know who this ringleader is, but he seems to suspect that he holds high position - possibly in the Jerusalem church. That is the meaning of hostis ean e, RSV, whoever he is; it does not so much refer to Paul's ignorance of his identity as allude to his rank” (Cole 148).
Dr. William Hagan of California State University goes further. He argues, convincingly, I think, that the leading critic of Paul’s work, anonymity for whom Paul seems intent on preserving, is none other than the apostle James, pastor of the Jerusalem church; in the eyes of many, the putative head of the entire ecclesiastical organization. In a careful comparative exegesis of the letters of Galatians and James, Hagan insightfully directs our attention to many points mutually discussed by both writers; it is as if they – Paul and James – are speaking primarily to each other, along with the larger audience, the Church, as listeners, in an attempt to bolster their respective doctrinal positions, grace and law.
If this assessment is correct -- and I’m inclined to believe that it is -- Paul finds himself in the exceedingly awkward position of having to defend, in his view, the essence of Christianity against that other son of Joseph and Mary, James of Jerusalem! Paul is not one to grandstand. He assiduously avoids unnecessary inflammatory remarks that might have the effect of splitting the Church into multiple denominations. Yet, as we learned in chapter two, he cannot back down from a fight when the honor of his Gentile brothers and sisters is at stake, not to mention the “truth” of the Good News (2. 14).
5. 11. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
circumcision [. . .] cross. “To preach circumcision is to tell sinners that they can save themselves by their own good works; to preach Christ crucified is to tell them that they cannot and that only Christ can save them through the cross” (Stott 137). The message of Circumcision is a flattering appeal, one that asserts that we can win at the game of (eternal) life by trying a little harder: getting up an hour earlier, keeping our socks pulled up and our noses clean. The Cross, on the other hand, speaks only of humiliation. Ugh! Can we bear to say it? We need God! We are fundamentally dependent upon Him. This kind of talk made Paul very unpopular with Galatia’s self-help, Dale Carnegie crowd.
if I yet preach circumcision. During the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, the incumbent senator, Judge Douglas, tried to make political hay with the claim that Lincoln had a different message for the folks of northern Illinois, staunch Republicans and former old-line Whigs, than what he preached in southern Illinois, a region sympathetic and closer to slave-holding territory. We see this same kind of demagoguery in play in Galatia as Paul’s critics attempt to paint him as one playing to the crowds, massaging his message to fit the occasion: “You preach circumcision among the Jews, but here among the Gentiles you change your story!”
I like Peterson’s translation of this passage as he, I believe, captures the sense of the unspoken politics of that day: “Why should I still be persecuted then? If I were preaching that old message, no one would be offended if I mentioned the Cross now and then - it would be so watered-down it wouldn't matter one way or the other” (397). Exactly right. If Paul truly were a proponent of Circumcision, speaking of the Cross only as an interesting but irrelevant side-note, no one from Jerusalem would have bothered him for a moment.
5. 12. I would that they were even cut off which trouble you.
Some commentators here suggest that Paul, in a fit of wild intemperance, throws propriety to the wind and delivers a crass schoolboy taunt: “If you like circumcision so much, why stop there? Why not just go all the way and emasculate yourselves?”
I doubt that such invective captures the sense of Paul’s thought. We find a similar charge of pettiness in 1. 8, 9, but, upon closer study, Paul retains his dignity – and I think the same result applies to the present example. “The language is strong, but it is not a coarse jest” (Cole 151). I offer my own paraphrase: “I wish that those who believe in the folly of circumcision as merit before God would ‘go all the way’ and earn the fullest merit by castrating themselves. I speak foolishly, of course, but only to underscore the issue. You must admit that this is the final, ‘logical’ (Vaughan 98) extension of my critics’ message. What I really wish is that these legalists could experience the full impact of their wayward message. Maybe that would finally convince them of the utter hopelessness of their cause, maybe then they would repent.” As evidence for such sentiment, I submit to you Paul’s next statement, one glowing with a pastor’s love and concern; particularly, his indictment against that which might "bite and devour," petty bickering and scurrilous talk.
5. 13-15. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
occasion. “a base of operations as in war” (Vine 169).
flesh. “We may translate lower nature (NEB) or animal nature” (Cole 155).
the law is fulfilled. Paul’s critics accused him of radical antinomianism, a position of gross disrespect for the holy law. Paul denies this. Despite his four-square emphasis on divine grace as the means for negotiating terms of salvation, Paul is never anti-law, even in the heat of ecclesiastical polemics. Paul here attempts to explain, a point never accepted by his opponents, that, far from disregarding the law, he sees the Old Covenant brought to full flower and fruition in the ministry of Jesus Christ, a ministry that became a living metaphor of the definition of love.
bite and devour. The Greek is "primarily used of snakes and animals" (Cole 157). Paul's use of these terms is significant. Those who are driven by animal passions, the 'works of the flesh,' will potentially exhibit a full range of animal-like behavior, all designed to maximize pleasure and avoid pain – at the expense, if necessary, of someone else. The law, with its near-glorification of human will power, can easily foster a destructive spirit of competition among those who should be working for the same Master. Only the gospel of grace, of loving neighbor as one's self, can heal and promote growth in the church.
This short section reintroduces the focal point of verse one, an emphasis on the Christian’s call to liberty. Paul wants to make very clear that his use of this word should not make him say, as his detractors loved to claim, that he, at least in practical effect, promoted sensuality. His definition of liberty, one he will continue to unfold, is, instead, a call to mature self-sacrificial Christian love. It is to this particular brand of freedom and not to another that “Christ has set us free” (verse 1).
5. 16. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Walk in the Spirit. “Live your whole life in the Spirit” (Phillips 398).
lust. This word, in circulation today, invariably means “sexual desire” - but it cut a much broader swath in 1611 for the AV translators, then pointing to generic “desire.” That this is the case here will be sufficiently evidenced by the laundry-list of sins featured in verses 19 – 21, many of which have nothing to do with bedroom conduct.
I have made the statement that the ancient Jewish law tended toward the glorification of the human will; that self-mastery would properly lead to self-congratulation, all choreographed and staged with the background music, I Did It My Way. It is not my purpose to make light of human commitment and resolve – the policy of “just say no”, of fortitude and sacred intention, secures its honored place. But while it may have its place, that place is one of limited value, when compared to something else.
One need be only a cursory reader of history to see that laws adopted by any society, secular or ecclesiastical, have never succeeded in creating perfect men and women. This, of course, states the obvious – but where does this leave us? Even if we grant to Paul his assertion that “trying very hard” and “promising to do better” never really produce the promised goods – what’s left? What other kind of system could offer even minimal success in terms of regulating society?
Paul began his letter with an offhand comment, one on which he now prepares to make good: “the gospel [. . .] is not after man (1. 11),” it was not humanly devised - couldn’t have even been dreamed up by one of us. A bold statement. Undaunted, Paul offers antidote to the human condition and begins his explanation with a general comment: “Live your whole life in the Spirit.” We are reminded of Jesus' heartfelt assertion in Mark 11: "Embrace this God-life, really embrace it!" (Peterson)
5. 17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
contrary the one to the other. “these two are in sharp opposition to each other [. . .] the conflict between them is fierce and unremitting” (Stott 146).
so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. “that is why you are not able to do what you want to do” (Phillips 398).
Some might claim that once one belongs to Christ, his or her life will be pure joy and a walk on the beach. Paul denies this – unless you mean Omaha Beach. “Fierce” and “unremitting,” according to Stott, are adjectives that describe the fight-to-the-death struggle between the two natures within.
And what does Paul mean when he says that we “cannot” or “are not able” to do as we please? Christian do continue to sin – indeed, Paul is writing to a church engaged in sinning; clearly they are able to do so.
But Paul’s point is this: when a Spirit-led Christian sins, he or she will not be able to sin in good conscience – the cognitive dissonance will be unpleasant, “fierce” and “unremitting.” The Spirit of life will not abandon the person under His care, even in the midst of the internal fire-fight, that struggle between flesh and spirit where there can be no cease-fire.
5. 18. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
under the law. Stamm instructs that there is no article in the Greek denoting law in the generic sense. Paul is asserting that if a Christian is guided by the Spirit, then he or she will no longer desire to be under any legal system designed to win God’s favor.
5. 19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest; which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
manifest. "anyone can see" (The New English Bible 859). Paul forthrightly exclaims that one needn’t be in doubt as to which camp, flesh or spirit, one is a member. Paul has already conceded that Christians fall into sin – but not as habitual life-style, the mark of those living for “the flesh.”
uncleanness. "Paul is not speaking of ceremonial physical uncleanness [but is] concerned with moral impurity of every kind. The Greek word is often associated with sexual vice, but its broader meaning here includes all that defiles the heart and distracts from right living" (Stamm 562).
lasciviousness. "It speaks of one who acknowledges no restraints, who dares whatever his caprice and wanton petulance may suggest. It refers to one who has an insolent contempt for public opinion, and shamelessly outrages public decency" (Wuest 157).
5. 20. Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Idolatry. Stamm posits that this vice speaks of “unregenerate human nature” attempting to create “its god in its own image,” an effort to justify “the way it was living and meant to keep on living” (562).
witchcraft. Paul's attack here centers on sorcery as a “competitor of true religion,” a system opposed to “praying as Jesus did, 'Thy will by done.' Claiming to specialize in the impossible, it prostituted faith to superstition, and divorced religion from ethics" (Stamm 562).
emulations. "the unfriendly feeling excited by another's possession of good" (Wuest 158).
5. 21. Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
do such things. The “verb [. . .] referring to habitual practice rather than an isolated lapse” (Stott 148).
Peterson, I think, outdoes himself with this jolting paraphrase of verses 19 - 21, hard-hitting and jarringly poetic:
It is obvious what kind of life develops out of trying to get your own way all the time: repetitive, loveless, cheap sex; a stinking accumulation of mental and emotional garbage; frenzied and joyless grabs for happiness; trinket gods; magic-show religion; paranoid loneliness; cutthroat competition; all-consuming-yet-never-satisfied wants; a brutal temper; an impotence to love or be loved; divided homes and divided lives; small-minded and lopsided pursuits; the vicious habit of depersonalizing everyone into a rival; uncontrolled and uncontrollable addictions; ugly parodies of community. I could go on. (398)
5. 22-23. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
faith, Meekness, temperance. “We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely” (Peterson 398).
against such there is no law. It is the function of law to restrict and deter. A citizenry in whose hearts reside felony and malfeasance cannot be trusted to do right. But they in whom dwells the life-giving Spirit find themselves beginning to want to think and act charitably – so says Paul. “What need is there for law against such a person?” the apostle demands.
fruit. A term carefully chosen by the Apostle of Grace, “fruit” stands against the “works” of the flesh. This latter product is the result of human effort – misguided, wrong-headed effort – all of which is the calling-card of legalistic systems, Paul asserts. The Judaizers have claimed that, but for them and their law, “the people would run wild.”
“Foul,” cries Paul as he counters with his use of “works” to say that legalism is a key accomplice in the production of all manner of human vice. But the good things of the Spirit are not characterized primarily as “works” but as “fruit.” Just as no one has ever witnessed an apple on the bough dripping with beads of sweat, straining and laboring to produce itself, so too, the beautiful fruit of the Spirit derives not primarily from human effort nor will power, nevertheless, burgeoning and ripening, naturally, over time.
Paul, in the next verse, will continue to develop this theme, a thesis he must advance against the Judaizers’ mantra for the frenzied need to “buck up” and “try very hard” to make oneself perfect. This is what causes "burn out" and great burdens of guilt.
5. 24. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
they [. . .] have crucified the flesh. Stott would have us understand that “Galatians 5:24 does not teach the same truth as Galatians 2:20 or Romans 6:6;” that “in those verses” a Christian’s association with crucifixion occurs by virtue of his or her faith-union with Christ. But the present verse speaks to no passive event but “a deliberate putting to death” of one’s own self (150), the part of self representing our natural passions, the “flesh.” Paul invents no new doctrine here but offers in reconstituted form Jesus’ instruction on self-denial (Mark 8. 34).
But talk of self-denial, and that of a sort characterized by crucifixion, seems to reach for heights of will power not envisioned even by the Judaizers. It would seem that Paul’s theology is nothing more than reverence for the law in another guise. After this stark, almost crude, instruction to "crucify" the animal passions, how will Paul separate himself from the teachings of his critics?
5. 25. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
"If the Spirit is the source of our life, let the Spirit also direct our course" (The New English Bible 859). We have reached the climax of Paul’s argument regarding the Spirit versus the flesh. But his argument may fall flat for those relying solely on English translations to deliver the knockout punch of his closing appeal. If we examine the thread of Paul’s argument more closely, including some of the Greek words he employed, his line of reasoning becomes, I think, more persuasive:
The Christian is to “live” (verse 25) and “walk” (verse 16) in the Spirit. That is to say, the Spirit defines the sphere in which the Christian thinks and acts. Such domain is tacitly contrasted with those who live and walk in the realm governed solely by natural desires, the “flesh.” This latter kingdom is to be thoroughly repudiated in self-denial (verse 24); but, in equal fortitude, the Christian must now turn toward a life in the Spirit. This done, the flesh will respond with “fierce” and “unremitting” attempts to thwart any such change of loyalties (verse 17). However, Paul encourages his converts in verse 16: “If you endeavor to live and walk in the Spirit, then you will thwart the challenge of the flesh – you will not mute its shrill voice, but it shall not rule over you!”
So far so good. To this point, however, Paul asserts nothing that the Judaizers, in principle, were not also claiming for their holy law. But, Paul wants them to know, the Christian who lives and walks in the Spirit will also be “led” by the Spirit (verse 18). The verb, led, in secular Greek “is used of a farmer herding cattle” which implies that the Spirit, in some measure, “takes the initiative” in his dealings with us. The Spirit begins to subvert the cravings of the flesh, gradually displacing them by creating “within us holy and heavenly desires” (Stott 152).
If the Spirit leads us, much as sheep are led to pasture, all of this begins to sound like a diminishing of human volition, a dehumanizing affair. Paul denies this and does so by his choice of a special word for “walk” in verse 25. There, it means “walk in line with” and implies the existence of a standard by which one’s walk is measured. The other “walk” of verse 16 finds its origins in a different Greek word, the “ordinary one for walking” (Stott 153). Stott emphasizes that both passive and active phrases are employed here: “It is the Spirit who does the leading, but we who do the walking” (Stott 152). But, invoking Tennyson, this is no walk with “aimless feet.” While the Christian’s “walk,” his activities, represents his own choices, it is a walk purposefully seeking a certain path laid down by Another.
As I study Paul’s argument, I ask myself, “If I were one of his critics from Jerusalem, or one of the fence-sitters of the Galatian congregation, would I have been convinced by all of this talk about the inner workings of the Spirit?” I suggest that the answer is, probably not. It is the kind of argument that will be convincing only to those who have personally experienced the whispering promptings of the Spirit, the subtle infusion of “heavenly desires” where once only the flesh reigned. To Paul, this is all very real; he is convinced, he knows, that the Spirit of Christ lives within him, a power changing him from the inside out. And because of this Presence, Paul finds himself compelled – inwardly motivated and desiring -- to perform charitable works toward God and man; a devoted and consecrated life that the Old Covenant law could only beg, plead, and threaten to enforce. Paul’s explanation of the ways of the Spirit, presumably, is about as effective for this legalistic audience as an attempt to explain the color red to a blind man.
5. 26. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
provoking. "This Greek verb [. . .] means to challenge somebody to a contest. It implies that we are so sure of our superiority that we want to demonstrate it” (Stott 156). Paul, describing a factious spirit resident in the Galatian church, implies that walking in the Spirit (verse 25) will serve as healing balm to the party-politics now infecting the congregation.
|