Galatians 5: My Take

I'm teaching this tomorrow, so here is my lesson.  Perhaps this will help someone.

Context is very important in Galatians; otherwise it can seem like a random rant.  All the epistles are “fly on the wall” situations.  Just as if we wrote a letter to a family member or friend, there would be things in it others wouldn’t get, there is background here that we have to know.

The Galatians were mixed Gentile/Jewish congregation.  Actually Galatians were in the region of Galatia and Phrygia, which is somewhat inland of what we call Turkey today. This was a very Christian region until the Muslim period after 800 AD.  Paul and Silas went there in Acts 16 on first missionary trip, and planned to go further north but the scripture says three times that they were instead led to go to the West, to Greece.  They revisited the Galatians in Acts 18.  Not as much time was spent there, so they may have been susceptible to bad teachers.  Paul apparently did not go back there on later missionary journeys.

Malick:  “Paul defends his apostleship in order to exhort the believers in Galatia to continue to adhere to the true gospel which not only includes justification by faith, but also sanctification by faith.²⁵ He defends his personal life and his theology as a means of defending his gospel message to the Galatians. “

Think of the Law as having three parts:  Promise, Ethic, and Code.  The Promise is about the Messiah and future of the Jews.  The ethic is about right living in community, and these two are not what Paul is worried about or arguing against.  “Paul is against the imposition of the Law (code) of Moses upon Gentiles (or Jews) for the sake of their justification or their sanctification (Gal. 2:3, 11-21; 3:2-5).” (Malick)

In Galatians 2 Paul talks about a time that he and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to speak to the leaders:  John, James, and Peter—privately, about fighting legalism.

I am of the opinion that the legalism we talk about today is somewhat different from the legalism of Paul’s time, although you can make some connections.  His legalism is adherence to Old Testament Law. Today when we think of legalism it usually has to do with some kind of cultural practice that we associate(d) with holy living.  Not smoking or drinking; not watching R-rated movies.  Most of our legalistic thinking has nothing to do with Jewish ceremonial law. 

The thing that ties them is believing these practices, or not doing them, makes us righteous before God or more loved by Him.  Only obedience to the Holy Spirit sanctifies (makes us more like Christ).  So where do these things come in?  I think it’s Hebrews 12:  the weight and sin that besets us.  We have to make personal choices to set aside certain things that get in the way of holy living, and we can advise others in humility but not mandate most of these things except for organizational purposes.  A church can expect its leaders not to drink; otherwise it’s a matter of personal choice for the sake of the gospel and one’s own sanctification not to drink.  Drunkenness is forbidden, not drinking (but that’s a fine line). 

Unfortunately today people have associated any personal lifestyle standards with legalism, which is as wrong as mandating a person must not do a particular action in order to be accepted by God.  I heard someone say “if you abide by the speed limit that’s legalistic,” which is nonsense.  Abiding by the speed limit is following the government law, which we are commanded to do, and has nothing to do with legalism, unless you think that doing it makes God love you more.  The prodigal son is the perfect example:  the older brother thought the father should love him more because he stayed at home. 

So all this brings us to Galatians 5.  You can think of the circumcision issue as a representation of all the Jewish practices in the ceremonial law that outsiders (and maybe some believers) were trying to impose, and this one is particularly Jewish and personal.  Paul does not present these people as do-gooders who are trying to help.  They are evil and are trying to destroy the work of God to bring a gospel of grace.  People who want to mix law and grace are not doing us a favor.  They are destroying.  This is how I feel about cults.  Most cults have two problems:  Their doctrine of Christ, and their doctrine of sanctification/justification.  Jesus is someone other than the Son of God, and/or you must do something  to be right with God.   No matter how “sweet” the people look on the outside, their doctrine is destructive.  Unfortunately, many of them are deluded and don’t even know their own doctrines. 

The phrase “fallen from grace” is misused in modern times.  It literally means you have fallen away from grace-righteousness by trying to impress God on your own with works righteousness.  It is not falling into sin (that’s a different matter).

The phrase “Faith working through love” is a very good one to keep in mind as a basis for the Christian “walk” or daily life of practice. An old Bible teacher I knew said these were the two feet we walked the Christian life on.  Right belief and right affection.  Cognitive and affective.  Trust and motivation for others.  (draw picture).  I live too much of my life on duty and guilt.  The Biblical ethic talks a lot about practice, “do” as a regular action. 

7-12 gets a little personal and harsh.  If these people are so worried about their male organs, maybe they should go even further.  This emphasis on circumcision is just one inroad, and there will be more, because destruction of grace (which is an affront to God’s glory) affects everything (lump/leaven analogy)

I seem to be stuck with the lessons on circumcision.  Did you know today there is a movement in secular circles against it calling it genital mutilation and immoral?  In San Francisco they want to outlaw it.  I think that is an anti-Semitic thing, although Muslims practice it also. 

13-15.  So, since you don’t have to be bogged down with ceremonial law, use this freedom to do good and love.  Wow. 

Now I finally get to the point.  16-ff.  A Christian is either led by the Holy Spirit and producing fruit, or is a slave to legalistic ways.  Before, you were workers of iniquity, and this is what it looked like.  Now, you can be a tree or vine (other passages) that produce fruit (not fruits) of certain qualities, but you can’t work those out yourself.  You can’t say from a Christian perspective “on my own I will have peace.”  You obey the word and submit to the Holy Spirit to let Him produce it. 

I was reading about Buddhism this week.  What Americans think of Buddhism is not what it really is, and its ideas are making inroads into Christian practice.  “Mindfulness” is a good concept but it existed in Christian theology a long time before it was introduced to the West from Buddhism.  Buddhism is a way of trying to achieve peace, love, joy, self-control on one’s own rather than reliance on the Holy Spirit.

Ultimately, it’s about control and dependency:  who is in control of your life, and you are you dependent on?  Those are the two questions you can ask yourself every day.