Sermon Number 12
The Implications of Following the Judaizers (5:2-12)
Jim Bordwine, ThD
Introduction
In the last passage which we considered, Gal. 4:12-5:1, Paul spoke chiefly to the Judaizers who were troubling these churches. Using a story from the Old Testament, Paul produced an allegory in which he demonstrated the error in the Judaizers' theology, on the one hand, and the truth of the gospel which he preached, on the other. We now are ready to begin consideration of the next section in the fifth chapter. In vv. 2-12, Paul continues writing about themes presented earlier. He also continues speaking bluntly as he warns the Galatians about the dangers of abandoning their previously professed loyalty to the gospel.
In this passage, Paul identifies two specific and significant implications of the Judaizers' theology. First, he says that if you follow the Judaizers, you must forsake Christ. There can be no sharing of theologies, no mixture of Paul's teaching with that of the Judaizers. Second, if you follow the Judaizers, Paul warns, you must disobey the truth. The teaching of the Judaizers was not a complement to Paul's teaching, it was erroneous doctrine; it was doctrine which contradicted the gospel, so it could be labeled only as falsehood.
Let's examine these three points in detail:
2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. 7 You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. 10 I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. 12 I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
01. If the Galatians followed the Judaizers, they had to forsake Christ (vv. 2-4)
I've mentioned several times that the Judaizers taught that the Law of Moses had to be observed by those desiring to please God. As Paul has written, this view of the Law was contrary to its intention and, of course, a contradiction of the gospel, which declares that salvation is by grace through faith alone. One particular aspect of the Law which was being urged upon the Galatians was the requirement of circumcision. Under the old covenant, circumcision was a sign of belief in the promise of God that He would bring salvation to the nations of the earth through the seed of Abraham, which is Christ.
With the coming of Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant, the sign of inclusion in the company of God's people changed from circumcision to water baptism. With this change came also a slight, but important change in emphasis from what the believer under the old covenant did himself to what the believer under the new covenant has done for him. While both circumcision and baptism share aspects of meaning and symbolism, we can also say that circumcision put more stress on the faithful man's response to the promise of God, while baptism puts more stress on what was done to the faithful man by the Holy Spirit who is symbolized in the water. The switch from circumcision to baptism, then, was, in one manner of speaking, an increasing emphasis upon grace.
Now, as Paul wrote this letter, circumcision was exclusively associated with the old covenant-the pre-Messiah anticipation instead of the post-Messiah realization. Circumcision, as understood and practiced by the Judaizers, represented an attempt to earn God's favor because it was linked to observance of the Law as a means of self-justification. Naturally, then, circumcision was improper for anyone who believed the gospel which declares that the Savior has come and has accomplished our redemption. In Galatia, the two sides could be characterized as “the party of the circumcision” and “the party of Christ.”
Not surprisingly, therefore, Paul gets to the point when he says: “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.” (v. 2) “If you accept the teaching of the Judaizers,” Paul writes, “you can have no part in Christ.” To choose circumcision is to reject Christ and His work. Does this sound like there could be cooperation between the Judaizers and Paul? Does it sound like there was any room for compromise? Would it be “ok” to take some teaching from the Judaizers and some from Paul? These two approaches to God, as Paul has taught from the opening chapter, are mutually exclusive and drastically opposed.
To be circumcised would be to accept the significance of that ritual as understood by the Judaizers. Of course, then, there could be no cooperation between those false teachers and Paul. They taught works-righteousness and he taught the imputed righteousness of Christ; they taught that God had regard for the efforts of the sinner, while Paul taught that God had regard only for the finished work of Christ on behalf of the sinner. No mistaken impression could be had, therefore, based upon the apostle's opening statement in this passage.
Nevertheless, to emphasize his point even further, Paul declares that if a man chooses to follow the Judaizers in circumcision, then he must understand what that means-it means that such a man is thereafter “under obligation to keep the whole Law.” (v. 3) This was the theology of the Judaizers; they were not simply saying that a man should be circumcised, they were saying that circumcision was the initiatory rite by which a man entered a works-righteousness world of existence. In the flawed theology of the Judaizers, circumcision served as a symbol of the whole system, just like baptism serves as a symbol of the gospel. Circumcision represented commitment to a works-based approach to God, while baptism represents a grace-based approach to God.
So, Paul writes bluntly, “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace.” (v. 4) This is strong language, but entirely appropriate given the issues at stake. As I've been saying, this was a matter of salvation by works or salvation by grace. There is no overlap between these two perspectives. The Galatians may have professed belief in the gospel when Paul visited and preached to them, but if they now showed a desire to follow the Judaizers, they were excluded from Christ and had no part in the grace of God which brings salvation.
The word translated “severed” (katargeo) means “to render inoperative” or “to be separated from.” This word is forceful; it means that there can be no connection whatsoever between Christ and the man who chooses Law-keeping as a means of justification. In such a case, the sinner would be attempting to do what Christ has done. There can be only one Savior. The sinner does not “help out” with his salvation; he either attempts it all on his own, or he looks for a Substitute to accomplish it for him. The gospel presents Christ as that Substitute, but the Judaizers were presenting the opposite.
I should mention that when Paul says “you have fallen from grace,” he certainly doesn't mean that the Galatians were once truly regenerated when they believed the gospel, but now have returned to an unsaved or unregenerate state. The term he uses (ekpipto) means that those Galatians who were following the Judaizers were moving from a grace-based system of justification, in terms of what they professed, to a Law or works-based system. Again, Paul's vivid language is deliberate and meant to shock the straying Galatians.
02. If the Galatians followed the Judaizers, they had to disobey the truth (vv. 5-12)
Beginning with v. 5, Paul speaks of the positive nature of the Christian's position. Those who followed the Judaizers had to deny Christ, but “we,” that is, those who believed the gospel, “through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.” The “hope of righteousness” is a term probably meaning the fullness of redemption or the final outcome for the faithful. Those who believe the gospel have a hope of eternity with God and that is what we look forward to even while we live out our days here on earth. The Law-keepers, the Judaizers, on the other hand, have no such hope. They can only strive each day to be perfect and be tormented each day by the knowledge that they have failed.
Notice the contrast between those who receive circumcision and are, therefore, under obligation to keep the whole Law, and those, like Paul, who have a hope of righteousness not based on Law-keeping or self-effort. We, Paul teaches, are saved as the Spirit works in us. This reference to the Spirit makes sense when you remember that Paul has mentioned the Spirit several times previously as the agent whereby the benefits of redemption are applied to and manifested for the believer. So, now, he is saying that he and other believers are saved as the Spirit applies to them the finished work of the Savior.
Then Paul makes what would have been an outrageous statement to the ears of the Judaizers: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (v. 6) He is speaking against opponents who truly believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation and that the uncircumcised were excluded from God's favor. To the Judaizers, circumcision was a pivotal doctrine; yet, Paul, the preacher of the gospel, writes that it really doesn't matter whether a man is circumcised or not circumcised because circumcision has nothing to do with justification. This is the point Paul has been making since the beginning of this letter. The sinner is not justified by any act he performs himself.
In this sentence, Paul reveals a theology that is diametrically opposed to that of his adversaries. He is declaring that the issue which they judge most important is not important at all. This simple word from Paul pinpoints the crucial difference between himself and the Judaizers. Paul trusted the finished work of Christ, they trusted their own efforts. Paul looked to Christ in whom is found the needed righteousness, but the Judaizers depended upon their own righteousness. The place of circumcision in the respective theologies of Paul and the Judaizers showed the nature of those respective theologies. One was grace-oriented and the other was works or Law-oriented.
In essence, Paul asks: “If you are in Christ, if you have believed the gospel in which God promises to accept His payment for your sins, and in which God promises to impute Christ's righteousness to you, then what need do you have of circumcision? How is conformity to that ritual going to save? How could such an act of obedience to the Law ensure your acceptability before God?” Paul is asking all of these questions of the Galatians. They know what they heard when Paul first visited; they know that they professed belief in the gospel of grace; they know that they witnessed the power of God in their midst. And all of this happened apart from circumcision, apart from regard for the Law as a means of gaining acceptance before God. Why do you listen to the Judaizers? Why do you allow them to take your freedom? Circumcision means nothing, uncircumcision means nothing, Paul states.
What matters, as he has said repeatedly, is faith and this faith, contrary to what the Judaizers may have charged, manifests itself in works of love. Here, Paul presents the right order between faith and works. Works do not precede faith, but faith comes first and is the ground from which works spring. The character of these works is such that Paul describes them as “love,” meaning that they correspond to the Scripture's teaching regarding how we are to treat one another. Paul certainly means to say that the faith which he has been defending in this letter is not without fruit. The Judaizers were so worried about doing things, but Paul tells them that they have it backwards. First comes faith, then come works of righteousness and love. The latter are produced by the former and not vice versa.
Paul acknowledges the promising beginning which the Galatians experienced: “You were running well, who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (v. 7) One of the themes found in this letter is the change in direction to be noted in the Galatians. Paul expresses amazement at points because when he left these congregations, they were characterized by belief in the gospel of grace, but then something happened; now he hears that they are listening to a different gospel, one that is not really a gospel at all, as he says earlier. Now the Galatians appear to be embracing a theology which is completely at odds with Paul's gospel. “You began well, you began in faith, you began by trusting the finished work of the Savior. What happened?,” Paul demands. And here we have the second implication of following the Judaizers spelled out: “who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
To follow the Judaizers, Paul says that the Galatians must disobey the truth; they must choose to disregard the revealed truth of God in the gospel and, instead, accept a lie. Again, we find Paul speaking bluntly-not with diplomacy, not with finesse, but bluntly. “If you accept the teaching of the Judaizers,” he says, “then you are making a choice to disobey God.” How much plainer could he be? How could Paul put the matter in a more obvious way? There are times when a doctrinal crisis demands forthrightness and this was one of those times. This was a disagreement on the most fundamental of all issues-how is a sinner made acceptable in the sight of God? Paul did not hesitate to speak uncompromisingly, therefore.
The apostle doesn't stop by noting the departure of the Galatians. He continues and, in defense of his own ministry and in defense of the good and holy name of God, he says: “This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.” (v. 8) The teaching of the Judaizers was not from God. And if their teaching was not from God, then what does that mean? It means that deception was in the works, it means that lies were being told, it means that souls were in peril because of false teachers. Paul warns: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.” (v. 9) In other words, “Galatians, don't think that you can play around with the teaching of the Judaizers. It is deadly and it will destroy you before you even realize what has happened.”
Remarkably, but not uncharacteristically, Paul offers a comforting word to the Galatians: “I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view…” (v. 10) This must have been a great encouragement to these folks. Paul is careful, however, when he offers this word; he says “I have confidence in you in the Lord…” He's not counting strictly on the Galatians to recognize their error and flee from the false teachers. But he is counting on Christ to come to the aid of those who believed in Him and who were being troubled by the false teachers. In fact, Paul speaks a word of warning concerning the leader of the Judaizers: “the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.”
There were consequences to what was going on in Galatia and the consequences were not limited to the Galatian citizens. True, Paul has pointed out two implications of following the Judaizers-the Galatians would have to deny Christ and disobey the truth-but there were implications for the false teachers, too. They would face a judgment from the One whose gospel they were perverting; they would face His wrath for denying His work as sufficient for the sinner's salvation. The Judaizers had every reason to fear because they were opposing God. How ironic! They represented themselves as teachers of the way to God, but Paul categorizes them as destined for God's judgment.
In v. 11, we get another hint at the tactics of the Judaizers. I've pointed out before that they lied and slandered Paul. This verse indicates that they were telling the Galatians that Paul actually endorsed circumcision. This is the lowest form of deception. The Judaizers came to town claiming to be in league with Paul, the apostle loved and respected by the Galatians. It's no wonder that the Judaizers had been so effective. But Paul asks a simple question: “Brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?”
Why did Jews everywhere hate Paul and make attempts on his life if he was still preaching the doctrine of the Pharisees? Obviously, Paul's point is that he was not teaching circumcision and the Judaizers were liars. The “stumbling block of the cross,” to which Paul refers, is the teaching in the gospel that salvation comes by grace through faith alone in the finished work of Christ. The Jews would not accept that doctrine. The insisted that the sinner must keep the Law in order to be redeemed. Paul opposed that view.
Finally, using a play on words, Paul expresses his wish regarding the Judaizers: “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.” (v. 12) Without being too crude, let me tell you that what Paul is suggesting is that the Judaizers, who are so interested in a small mutilation of the flesh, should go all the way and castrate themselves. He is, of course, mocking the Judaizers.
Conclusion
For our application, I want to note three quick principles which come from this passage. First, Paul quickly established the exclusive nature of the gospel. He told the Galatians that they could follow the Judaizers or Christ, but not both. If they followed the Judaizers, they had to deny Christ-that is, the very act of following the theology of the Judaizers was a denial of the gospel. I've mentioned before in this series on the epistle to the Galatians that Paul reminds us that the gospel stands alone as the system by which we are redeemed. And I've pointed out in the same connection the fact that we are living in a day when the gospel has lost its exclusivity in the minds of most people. The gospel now is looked upon by those outside the Church as just one more option among many. Therefore, the need for us to understand the singular importance of the gospel of Christ is pressing. Our view on this matter is going to be communicated to our children and they are the ones who will be dealing with the results of the theological pluralism which today is still in development.
The only stand to take is a hard stand; and taking hard stands is increasingly unpopular. This is only because Christians haven't been taking hard stands for a long time. Regardless of the state in which we find ourselves, however, our duty is to imitate Paul in the training of our children, and in our beliefs and practices as families. We have to be on guard so that we recognize alternatives to the pure gospel, which are easy to spot, but also attempts to modify, ever so slightly, the pure gospel, which are not so easy to spot.
A second principle to be mentioned comes from Paul's comments regarding the hope which believers have and, by way of implication, the Judaizers did not have. It's a simple fact, but a comforting one. We who have believed the gospel can relax. All the work has been done for us by Christ; we are headed toward heaven; nothing can change that fact. This is a doctrine which brings great peace to this life. God does not expect you to impress Him because your debt has been paid by His Son. There's no pressure on us, no fear resides in us and no doubts trouble us-not because we have achieved anything, but because our Savior has taken care of us. Remember Paul's words: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything…” Those two description represent the two states of all men-you are either a Jew or a Gentile; that is what Paul means. But it doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or a Gentile because Christ accomplishes salvation for the sinner, not with the sinner's help or cooperation.
A third principle illustrated by Paul is the necessity of frankness when involved in a doctrinal crisis. There are times in Paul's epistles when he is gentle and there are times when he is not so gentle. Particularly when he is dealing with false teachers, Paul can be brutal. When the apostle is dealing with a fundamental issue, as he is in this letter, he gets straight to the point and insists on identifying the two sides in the controversy and insists on plainly and forcefully defending the truth.
We are, at this time, facing what I believe are similar doctrinal crises in our own denomination. Within the past two years, we, as a denomination, have taken a position on the doctrine of creation which is indefensible. Currently, the issue before us has to do with the use of women in the pulpit. This is a time for frankness; this is a time for the kind of boldness and dedication to the word of God shown by Paul. These are pivotal issues, the resolution of which will determine the future of this denomination. So, we do not live in a time which is free of doctrinal crises; we live in a time when those crises are right in our own back yard, so to speak.
And in this regard, I'm reminded of what Paul warned: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.” A little compromise here, a little accommodation there, and soon, your church is lost. That is what Paul means. We have leaven in the PCA in the form of certain views on creation. We didn't get rid of that leaven and it is now doing its work throughout the denomination, one Presbytery at a time. And we have discovered some more leaven in the form of one of our churches which uses women to exhort the congregation. You have to wonder how that leaven is going to be handled.
Paul's warning is to be taken seriously. I realize, of course, that you folks are not directly involved in these debates, but you can pray for your Elders as we determine what steps to take in order to defend the truth. Paul certainly appointed the Galatians themselves as guardians of the truth; and the same could be said of you.