09-The Fifth Paragraph from Galatians
The Fifth Paragraph from Galatians (Chapter 5:1-12)
It is at this point we have revealed to us the exact nature of the dreadful change which had come over the Galatians. What it was we could have gathered from Acts, but here it is in black and white. Jew believers and Gentiles alike, they had yielded to the suggestion that Christ would not serve alone, but that it must be Christ and Moses. The contest was between the liberty of Christ and the heavy bondage of the Lawgiver.
Accordingly the Apostle continues:
5:1. “For freedom Christ hath made us believers free. Stand firm and be not caught again in the yoke of slavery!” The shorter reading here is the reading of the Editors. The rendering of the dative (now, I believe, usually followed) was the rendering preferred by the American Revisers of 1881. The definite article seems to make it all but inevitable. Without it we might have rendered “Christ has made us wholly free,” on the analogy of such a phrase as ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα. As it is, the simple dative here seems to carry the same meaning as the ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ of v. 13. The curious word στήκειν is all but only Pauline in the pages of N.T.: it is found three times in the Septuagint. Plainly it is a useful form, though rather startling at first. We might have had βήκειν too, or even γνώκειν! ‘Yokes’ are so unfamiliar to us that I venture to say ‘be not caught’; although a ‘yoke’ is hardly a thing in which one is ‘caught,’ and the tense does not really imply a momentary experience. In English one cannot say ‘be not held again.’ And “entangled” (as in R.V.) is a desperate mixing of metaphors. The earlier translations in our language (except Wycliffe and the Rheims) were even more unhappy, “wrap not yourselves again.” The weighty warning of the verse should be left to stand by itself. It can neither be closely attached to what goes before nor to that which follows after.
5:2-5. “Lo! I Paul say to you, that if you are ‘circumcisers,’ Christ will profit you not one whit. Once again I solemnly protest to every man that is ready to submit to circumcision, that he is absolutely bound to carry out the Law in its entirety. Your relation with Christ has come to nothing, you that seek to right yourselves with God by Law. You have fallen from grace. We (true believers) look for and hope for acceptance with Him, spiritually, by faith.”
“I, Paul,” here seems to imply, not ‘I, Paul, that am accused of preaching circumcision’ (which indeed is possible), but rather, ‘I, the Paul you know,’ ‘your own evangelist.’ This is made likely (I think) by the λέγω ὑμῖν which follows. Ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε does not mean so much as “if ye be circumcised”; but rather “if ye be for circumcising,” expressing a tendency of the will. For me, I should say the verb must be thought of in connexion with the Pauline phrase οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι (‘the circumcisers,’ or ‘circumcision people’). That is why I have paraphrased it so. If they yield to this weakness, he says, so far from being ‘saved’ through Christ, they will gain no good whatever. Μαρτύρομαι, three times out of five in the N.T., is used in this non-classical way. The meaning is plain enough. ‘I solemnly protest to you,’ or ‘assure you.’ The same construction is found in LXX, though only in one place (Jdt 7:28). Ὀφειλέτης appears to mark a high degree of obligation: it is only Pauline in this figurative use, though the verb is common enough in a similar sense. “To do” the Law means to carry it out, achieve it; here the phrase is very strong, “to carry it out in every particular.” The very curious formula καταργεῖσθαι ἀπό is found in Romans also (7:2). Ἀπό may imply ‘separation’ or ‘direction’ (‘on the side of’). The former is more likely; in that case the usage is ‘pregnant.’ Two ideas are combined in one; “you are frustrated and dissevered from Christ.” That is, your union with Christ is dissolved. The tense (as in St John 15:6) appears to be ‘instantaneous.’ The very notion of seeking circumcision, as an aid towards justification, has this disastrous effect at once. Christ becomes nothing to you and you to Him. The relative here keeps its common ‘generic’ force. ‘Grace’ means the condition of Divine favour secured by union with Christ. In v. 5 the compact adverbial dative πνεύματι is very difficult of rendering. Law, and all external ordinances, would be similarly characterised by a brief and comprehensive σαρκί. So much meaning lies in πνεύματι that in English we really need to make it a separate clause. Otherwise the stress that lies upon the word cannot be adequately reproduced. “We Christians look for acceptance by faith-a spiritual thing.” Ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης literally means “an acceptance that we hope for,” Δικαιοσύνη is here used in the very unusual sense of ‘final redemption.’ The same idea is found in Php 3:20, and a similar expression (perhaps) in 2 Timothy 4:8.
5:6. “Where Christ Jesus is, you know, neither circumcision matters at all, nor uncircumcision: no (the only thing that counts is) faith operating through love.”
Ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, one apprehends, is equivalent to such a phrase as ‘for real Christians.’ It is altogether possible that it is ‘Pauline’ for τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The remainder of the clause is put with characteristic vigour. The addition of the ‘οὔτε ἀκροβυστία’ (or rather, the “neither … nor …”) brings home to our minds the absolute ‘indifference’ of any such rite as circumcision. As is well known, in 1 Corinthians 3:7 we have a parallel elliptical construction; and in 1 Corinthians 7:19 the same statement is conveyed to the reader in all but identical terms. The verbal phrase to be supplied in the latter member of our sentence would be something like πάντα ἰσχύει. In three places the nullity of circumcision is insisted on, and each time something else is contrasted with that nullity. Here it is “faith operating through love,” as the only thing that does matter; in chap. 6:15 it is καινὴ κτίσις (which is only another way of expressing the same phenomenon). In 1 Corinthians 7:19, on the other hand, we have “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ.” If is difficult indeed to bring that into line with either of the ‘Galatian’ instances. One might, to be sure, illustrate it by quoting what Christ says to the rich young man in St Matthew 19:17. But, I suspect, St Paul is making excuse for the pious Israelite, to whom Christ is not known. ‘Circumcision’ had a merit, till Christ came, and a very obvious merit. It was a ‘fulfilling of righteousness’ by obedience to a positive enactment. And that, maybe, is what ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ implies: “only the keeping of a Divine ordinance.” Ἐνεργουμένη may be passive, but I believe it is deponent. ‘Love’ does not make ‘faith’ work; but ‘faith’ does express itself in ‘love.’ And, as everybody is aware, St Paul did not contemplate for one moment a ‘barren’ faith. The life of Christ in a man must ‘work’ and ‘bear fruit’-or die.
5:7. “Oh! you were running bravely! Who is it has hindered you from heeding the Truth? It is not a Godly influence to which you are yielding. Stop in time, oh, stop in time! I am confident of you, with a Christian confidence, that you will be minded as I say. And he that disturbs you, shall answer for it to God-be he who he may!” The imperfect ἐτρέχετε is full of picturesque vigour. All was going well till this intrusive influence came. They were making a brave show in the Christian race. Ἐνέκοψε certainly means ‘hinder’ (as in 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Romans 15:22), but what the underlying figure is, it were difficult to say-it can hardly be ‘breaking up a road.’ Ἀνακόπτειν (read by some here) is used in Thucydides for ‘beating back’ an assailant. The τίς would seem to imply that the Apostle actually did not know who was ringleader of ‘the disturbers’ (v. 12); apparently however he suspected that it was some one of consequence. Ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς (as always) is God the Father. Πεισμονή would seem to have some connexion with the foregoing πείθεσθαι. But what? As the word (in N.T. Scripture) is found only here, the meaning is of necessity uncertain. The proverb of v. 9 is found also in 1 Corinthians 5:6. It is a warning to beware of the ‘thin end of the wedge.’ Leaven, in Holy Writ, nearly always typifies some evil influence. It was thought by the ancients to be a process of corruption; but, I take it, modern science would hardly regard it so. Our Lord applies the figure in a purely neutral sense to the teaching of the Pharisees. He called their instruction ‘leaven,’ not so much, as I should hold, because it was ‘bad,’ but because it was ‘generative.’ Only in His own Parables does ‘leaven’ appear as a symbol of beneficent working; and even then the point of comparison is not the ‘goodness’ of the influence, but the unseen and rapid effect of it. The dark and ominous phrase used with regard to ‘ὁ ταράσσων’ in v. 10 I have interpreted in accordance with the Pauline use of κρίμα. I don’t think that there can be any doubt that the ‘judgment’ contemplated is the judgment of God. With regard to ὅστις ἂν ᾖ one would naturally suggest that the ringleader might easily shelter himself behind the weighty name of James, the brother of the Lord. But, be he who he may be, plainly those who disturb the Church of God will have to answer for it to God. In the two verses that follow next reference is made to a malicious statement current in the Churches of Galatia, about the Apostle himself. They said that he himself had demonstrated in act the importance he attached to circumcision. It would appear that the insinuation was based on the fact recorded in Acts 16:3. There we read of a ‘Galatian’ who was actually circumcised by St Paul himself, and that not on his first visit, but his second-to wit, his convert Timothy. Of him we read: “(Paul) took and circumcised him, because of the Jews that were in those parts.” The fact the Apostle does not deny; he does deny the inference. Timothy was circumcised out of a desire to conciliate-the event showed a mistaken desire. As St Paul says v. 11, the truth of the insinuation was disproved by the bitter enmity of the Circumcision Party.
5:11, 12. “As for me, my brothers, if at this time of day I am ‘preaching circumcision,’ why am I still assailed?”
“It would seem the offence of the Cross is wholly cancelled.”
“Oh! I could wish they did not stop short at circumcision-these folk that would upset you!” The two ἔτι’s of v. 11 are both idiomatic: the first is as in 1:10, the other as in Romans 3:7. The ἄρα of v. 11 introduces a false inference. It is of the nature of a reductio ad absurdum. The Apostle’s steps were dogged with an absolutely ruthless rancour. And the objection to him was that he preached consistently the ‘crucified Messiah.’ This (as he tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:23) was an idea of horror to the Jews and matter for ridicule to the Gentiles. As long as the Apostle preached it, so long was it inconceivable that Jews would tolerate him. But, if this disturbing influence came from a Jewish Christian quarter (which indeed we must suppose), it is a little hard to see wherein their ‘Christianity’ consisted. One would have thought that if they could not accept a ‘Messiah’ who was crucified, they would either have to deny the Messiahship of Jesus or to disbelieve in His crucifixion. And it is very difficult to see how they could do either. As for St Paul, not only did he believe Jesus to be Christ, although He was crucified, but he also based on this astounding fact the hope of all mankind. He preached ‘Christ crucified’ as the source of δικαιοσύνη-the one hope of man’s acceptance with the All Holy. v. 12 is the sudden outburst of a pent-up indignation. It is like the “God shall smite thee, thou whited wall!” of Acts 23:3. What it means is only too plain. “Utinam et abscindantur,” says the steadily literal Vulgate. Whether that is intended to convey the meaning of the Greek (as set forth in the paraphrase) or whether it represents “I would they should be cut off,” I do not know. Either rendering would be possible. The reference plainly is to those horrible self-mutilations which were practised, especially in honour of Cybele, by Asiatic votaries. The people of Galatia were familiar with such practices. The Greek (of course) means ‘I wish they would,’ not ‘I wish they had.’