chapter 5
chapter 5
FOR THE LAST TIME: EVERYTHING OR NOTHING!
5:1–12
1 For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
3 Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.
7 Ye were running well; who hindered you that ye should not obey the truth?
8 This persuasion came not of him that calleth you.
9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10 I have confidence to youward in the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.
12 I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.
The argument in this section still fits in the framework of what has gone before. It constitutes the conclusion of the preceding. It has a sharply polemical and practical quality. The more theoretical argumentation has ceased.
1 Very emphatically the freedom of the believers is placed in the foreground here as the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work. There is an antithetical drift in the argument, which comes to expression in a very richly pregnant, almost ironical, way. The self-evident quality of the utterance ought to make it superfluous: Christ did not set us free for slavery but for freedom! By this freedom is meant dismissal from subservience to the law (cf. 3:13, 22–25 and 4:1, 2, 21–31). It is a freedom from the curse of the law (3:13, 24), but also from the spiritual impotency from which the law cannot rescue man (3:21; cf. Rom. 8:3). Since the demand of the law continues, this spiritual inability takes on the character of a spiritual death (2 Cor. 3:6, 7). It is from this guilt-establishing and deadening power of the law that Christ has redeemed them by liberating them from the curse of the law and by raising up His own from death unto life (2 Cor. 3:6, 17). This took place—such the thrust of Christ set us free—through the death and resurrection of Christ which, through the power of the Spirit, also works life and freedom in believers (cf. 2:19, 20; 3:2; 4:6, and Rom. 7:4). And therefore the falling back into subservience is inexplicable and inexcusable.
Over against that the second clause comes with the positive: stand fast. It is an appeal for a resolute and steadfast perseverance in freedom against every effort to bring them again under the yoke of slavery. The reference is again to the yoke of legalistic prescriptions (cf. verse 2). This is not to say that the law has no further use (cf. verse 14 and Rom. 8:4), but outside of Christ the law has no claims upon the believers any longer; so far as both its mandatory character and its content go the law must be seen and judged entirely from the point of view of Christ (cf. 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21). The word again points to the fact that the Gentiles, too, although the law had not been given to them as it had been given to Israel, are nevertheless co-subservient to it (cf. 4:3–5). Be not entangled is to be taken in a reflexive sense: let themselves be kept in the yoke.
2 With the greatest possible force Paul now lets his apostolic authority come to expression: Behold, I Paul say unto you. He puts his readers before the dilemma: circumcision or Christ, everything or nothing. Do the false teachers want to persuade the Galatians that they must seek out the right combination of the two? Paul denies the possibility. The issue is not circumcision as such, as though circumcised persons could not be saved, but circumcision as the Judaists were demanding it of the Gentiles as a condition for obtaining salvation. The sufficiency of Christ’s work is what is being challenged. True, the Galatians have not yet entirely yielded to the opponents, but they are being prodded in that direction and seem turned that way (cf. 4:10). Hence it is necessary now to set the whole matter in sharpest focus and consistency, and to see through its implications.
3 Verse 3 gives a further explanation and confirmation of verse 2. The stately emphasis of verse 2 is now continued in the words: Yea, I testify to every man. What is said here has the power of a formal testimony which has general, universal validity. In verse 2 the apostle had said that Christ is all or nothing for man. Now he applies this same exclusive principle also to the law, and first of all to the law’s demand. He who submits to circumcision subjects himself to the whole law, must take the whole law for his reckoning. Apparently the readers did not know this. They did not want to surrender Christianity entirely to Judaism, but lent their ear to those who taught that without circumcision one could not receive the promise made to Abraham. Paul however puts the dilemma: the one or the other. That at other times he did not in all instances regard circumcision as objectionable (cf. Acts 16:3) is not in conflict with this sharp distinction. It is not circumcision that is an impediment to Christ, but the legalistic-soteriological motive underlying it.
4 Once more, and very clearly, the thrust of verses 2 and 3 is restated. The way in which man is to be justified before God is the thing that is in question. Here, now, are two exclusive principles: Christ and the law. If the Galatians again seek to be justified through the law—for such is the meaning of their drift towards circumcision—they give evidence of being separated, estranged, cut loose from Christ. The apostle faces them with this logic in order to bring them to the point of reflection (cf. verse 10). That is the force of ye are fallen away from grace. In this, grace proves to be the life-principle, a grace wrought by Christ and received through faith.
5 Verse 5 presents the contrast represented by the emphatic introductory pronoun we. It refers to those who together with Paul fix their hope not on the law, but on Christ. Every word of this sentence is more particularly explained in the preceding chapters and constitutes an appeal to what has been said in them. Through the Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit in His life-giving power, establishing the bond between Christ and His own. The phrase stands in contrast to by the law (verse 4), that is the law which works death and not life, slavery not freedom, despair not hope. The words by faith more exactly define the opposition of the two: what the Spirit gives and works is known and received by faith. This gift is further characterized as the hope of righteousness. Hope is objectively, not subjectively, meant: the thing hoped for, the object of the hope. This object consists of righteousness. As is evident also from the words we wait for, this righteousness is designated as something of the future. The apostle has his eye on the final verdict of acquittal in the divine judgment. Elsewhere, in Rom. 5:1, for instance, he speaks of righteousness in the past time, that is, as a verdict of acquittal that the believer has already received. But here the reference is to the verdict which God will pronounce before every ear and eye. In reference to this the Judaizers are demanding circumcision. The hope spoken of in this verse consists of a great longing and a positive certainty. Judaism cannot offer this certainty and therefore does not know this hope. It can never be sure which way the scales will tip.
6 The words in Christ refer not so much to the person of Christ as to the economy of salvation granted in Him. And this is again set in contrast to the sphere of life in which those move who look for their hope entirely or in part to the works of the law. Verse 6 gives a more detailed confirmation and explanation of verse 5. That Paul could speak as he did in verse 5 was based on the fact that being circumcised or not has no meaning for being justified—not now, after the coming of Christ. He is talking quite objectively again: the reference is to circumcision in itself, as a physical condition (but see also Rom. 4:11). To this he opposes faith. Of that it can be said that it availeth, not because it is the fulfillment of a nova lex, but because it brings Christ alone into relevancy. Moreover, the apostle suggests that faith is not ethically indifferent. Hence he introduces love into this context, something to which he will give more attention later (cf. verse 13 ff.). Faith is working through love. One may hold that the Judaizers made the charge against Paul that by preaching faith he was minimizing or even neglecting love as the fulfillment of the law. In response the apostle says that faith expresses itself, so to speak, in love. The thought contains the two truths that love is fruitful (cf. James 2:22) and that the energy of the works which love produces is quite different from the “works” of the law. This energy is a working of faith which has its principle and its source in the life-giving power of the Spirit. In accordance with the promise and in communion with Christ’s death and resurrection it brings into manifestation also the new life of believers.
7–8 Paul again recalls (cf. 3:2; 4:9, 14) the attention of the Galatians to the time when they had not yet under the influence of the Judaizers taken a wrong turn. He uses the figure of running in the race-course. They had gotten off to such a good start, seemed eager to bend every effort to living the life of service for Christ. Who now has hindered them from obedience to the truth? The question is not prompted by ignorance, but by amazement. What kind of people were these false teachers anyhow, and what did the Galatians expect of them, to warrant such an about-face? By the truth the gospel is meant. The truth is not exclusively intellectual, but determines the whole of man’s attitude toward life. Verse 8 speaks of this new influence in connection with the preceding as a persuasion. It cannot be said of this persuasion that it came of him that calleth you. The utterance is designed to remind the readers of the time when the gospel had brought about such a conversion. That was when they had the experience of being spoken to by the irresistible divine voice and been brought to obedience to the gospel. And, of course, even now they did not mean to deny him that called them. But they must nevertheless bethink themselves that their listening to the new voice is not merely an exchange of it for the divine one: it is to become apostate from the voice of God. The pressure being put upon them this time comes from an entirely different quarter from that from which they were once called.
9 Very probably this is a proverb (cf. Mt. 13:33) with the meaning: small causes, big results. The fatal element in Judaism is that by placing something alongside of Jesus (the circumcision, for instance) it at bottom denies the work of Christ (cf. verse 2). At stake in this matter is a principle. Like leaven this principle will prove to be of very comprehensive significance.
10 Although the apostle has time and again indicated how seriously he takes the spiritual condition of his readers (cf. verse 4), he now nevertheless expresses his confidence that the Galatians after what he has so far written will agree with him. This confidence is based on the communion in Christ, in which Paul knows his readers and himself to be included, and on which he has fixed his hope, also with an eye to his readers. From this it is evident, too, that in verse 4 he was not yet speaking of accomplished facts. It was the fear of such an outcome which made him speak so absolutely as he did. For the heretical teachers themselves, however, the apostle knows no condonation. He speaks of them in the singular number, perhaps by way of designating the Judaists in as general a way as possible (whosoever he be). It may also be because a particular person appeared as the leader among them (however, compare verse 12). In that event the words whosoever he be mean: irrespective of how important and esteemed the person may be or may act. The thing that he (or they) have brought about is trouble, that is, spiritual unrest and confusion in the church concerning the way of salvation. This is the result of the effort to combine Christ and the works of the law. The judgment upon this will not fail to come, however, and the party which has caused the confusion will have to bear his penalty as a heavy burden. Although God’s name is not mentioned, it is clear that Paul has in mind the judgment of God.
11 There is difference of opinion about the meaning of verse 11. As we see it, Paul is here simply mentioning the hypothetical case that he himself, just as the Judaizers supposed it mandatory, might even now, after the coming of Christ, be preaching circumcision as an indispensable condition. He would then no longer have to dread persecution, or opposition, or traps set by the Jews and by those who were letting themselves be led by the Jews. For then the stumbling-block of the cross would be removed. Now the cross means such a stumbling-block, for it rejects all human merit and glory and learns to expect all good only from the crucified Man of Sorrows. This is an offense and a vexation to men (1 Cor. 1:23). And if the requirement of circumcision were maintained, the center of gravity would be returned to man.
The apostle puts forward this hypothetical case in order again to set in a clear light the consequences of what the Judaizers wanted and demanded. The case is not real: it is intended merely to show that the work of Christ, which quite entirely eliminates man, and therefore is so offensive, is the thing at issue.
12 With these last words which testify to a deep disparagement and disdain, Paul now turns aside from the heretical teachers. Once more he characterizes them as they that unsettle you, that is, bring you into a condition of revolt, prod you on. The word gives expression to a despicable enterprise. Now he again speaks of his opponent in the plural (cf. verse 10).
Paul’s last word to these teachers is a malediction whose content is described in the translation even (to) go beyond circumcision. Presumably this is a reference to self-emasculation. The apostle does not have in mind the self-mutilation which occurred in ancient Israel and which brought the threat of banishment from the church of the Old Testament (Deut. 23:1), but rather sacral castration which was practised in some pagan religions and cults. If Paul wishes that the heretical teachers submit themselves also to this operation, usually undergone in a condition of raving madness, one would have to think of it in a sarcastic sense. That they should pay attention to his wish was not to be expected in any event. The apostle wishes merely to say: Whoever means to do God a service and to foster holiness by the circumcision of the pagans must not do half-work. He had better follow the example of the pagan priests who in their raving antics yielded themselves to unnatural abominations. In this way Paul disqualifies the effort of the Judaizers in the severest way: he puts the circumcision of the Gentiles on the same level as the most abysmally sunken pagan superstition. This remarkable fierceness over against the circumcision can be explained out of his passionate desire to keep the gospel of Christ free from all self-engendered increments which are well calculated to denature it. Such a mutilation of the gospel stands for Paul on one and the same level as the most despicable pagan practices, by means of which men tried to assure themselves of the favor of the gods.
This translation depends upon the most important documents. Other manuscripts have ᾗ instead of τῇ; still others have τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ᾗ. The fact that ᾗ has not a regular recurring position in the manuscripts makes this variant less acceptable. Its insertion before ἡμᾶς may be owing to dittography. Materially, also, the rendering of the best manuscripts is very convincing. By means of asyndetic statement the apostle gives force to his expression of the principle of freedom.
The dative ἐλευθερίᾳ is sometimes construed as instrumental. As we see it, a dative of purpose or designation makes better sense.
The στήκετε derived from στήκω has intensive effect.
The present tense points to a new, continuing condition which would obtain if the Galatians were to listen to the Judaizers.
ἐάν plus the subjunctive gives expression to possibility.
The δέ is not adversative here but conjunctive.
Compare 1 Thess. 2:12, Eph. 4:17, and Acts 20:26, 26:22.
It is approximately in such a sense that we are presumably to take πάλιν. Some think that it refers to an earlier oral statement by the apostle. As we see it, we shall have to explain it within the scope of the logical argument here being conducted. Paul is now repeating in reference to the law what in verse 2 he had said in reference to Christ. Hence not in the second place but again. It may be that the absence of πάλιν in some manuscripts is owing to a failure to understand the connection.
δικαιοῦσθε: de conatu.
ἐν is instrumental.
καταργοῦμαι ἀπό: to be cut off from relations with someone or something, to have nothing further to do with something (cf. Rom. 7:2, 6).
ἐκπίπτω: originally used for the falling out of a flower: to be loosed from something, to lose one’s grasp of.
The transition is formed by γάρ, however. In other words, verse 5 gives the explanation of the loss of grace named in verse 4: salvation is possible only if we “through the Spirit … wait for the righteousness.”
δικαιοσύνης is a genitive of explication.
The prepositions in ἀπʼ and ἐκδεχόμεθα lend an intensifying force.
All of the substantives of this passage are without the article so as to bring out the qualitative element the more strongly.
περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία: concretum pro abstracto.
The ἐνεργουμένη is certainly to be regarded as a middle. In this there lies an old controversy with Roman Catholic exegesis and dogmatics which speak of the fides caritate formata. This concept, according to the Aristotelian notion of form, makes love rather than faith the determinative idea. But this conception, quite apart from philosophical interpretations of ἐνεργουμένη, is indefensible on linguistic and material grounds. For one thing ἐνεργεῖσθαι is regularly in the New Testament taken in an intransitive sense (cf. Rom. 7:5, 2 Cor. 1:6, Eph. 3:20, 1 Thess. 2:13, and 2 Thess. 2:7). Moreover love does not precede faith, but faith precedes love. The operation of faith through love is not to be understood in a synergistic sense, as though faith through its expression of love cooperates in producing salvation, but is to be construed as an operation in an absolute sense. In the way of love (διʼ ἀγάπης) faith reveals and proves itself. See also Oepke, op. cit., p. 92.
Some manuscripts add μηδενὶ πείθεσθαι after πείθεσθαι. That makes for the version: “Who has hindered you? Obey no one (i.e. be persuaded by no one) not to obey the truth.” The determination of the right reading is difficult. The omission of these two words, since they make for an unusual expression, is the easier to explain; moreover, one can explain the omission as an instance of homœoteleuton. Far and away the most and the best manuscripts have the shorter version.
πείθεσθαι … πεισμονή.
The ἐγώ gives a strongly personal quality to this statement: “I for myself cannot think otherwise than that they …”
That this is Peter (Lietzmann) or that in the end it should perhaps prove to be James (Oepke), cannot be demonstrated on the basis of anything in the letter, nor by anything we know about relationships in the early church of the New Testament.
The question is what is meant by the words: If I still preach circumcision. Some think that Paul is here reflecting on a charge made against him, namely, that he himself in some instances clung to circumcision or even recommended it (Acts 16:3), and was therefore in a poor position to be admonishing others on this score. Others judge that Paul is not in this instance attacking the Judaizers, but is fighting on a second front against the antinomian enthusiasts, who themselves hold it against Paul that he has not quite conquered his own Judaism. But these views seem to us to have little in their favor. Concerning the last named theory, it seems right to remark that we know nothing about such a radical antinomianism in Galatia, and it would certainly not be brought into the discussion in such an unexpected and indirect a way. As for the first view—that Paul preached circumcision as a necessary condition for salvation—that could hardly be successfully charged against Paul by anyone. And even though we must reckon with the possibility that some among them blamed him for inconsistency, there is nothing to suggest that he is at the moment referring to that charge. And this takes no note of the fact, further, that such an alleged inconsistency could hardly be denominated a “preaching of the circumcision.”
σκάνδαλον really is the bit of a stick which keeps the trap from falling until one touches it: hence, the occasion for falling, sinning; a stumbling-block; an offence, τοῦ σταυροῦ is a genitive of origin or is epexegetical.
ἀποκόπτομαι; also in the profane literature the word sometimes has this meaning.
In the cult of Attis, for example, whose most famous temples were at Rome and in Phrygia in Asia Minor.
ὄφελον (Attic ὤφελον) plus the indicative future need not in the Koine necessarily introduce an unattainable wish. Apparently, however, it must be taken here in the sense indicated in the text above.