We adult Bible class teachers met Wednesday night to go over Parts 0.5 and 1 of the lessons on Galatians (those of us who didn’t go to the basketball game). It was correctly pointed out that I left unclear my position on whether those who are guilty of the Galatian heresy are lost. I said in Part 1 that I thought that the teachers were the ones Paul mainly had in mind.
One reason I was unclear is that Paul isn’t all that clear. However, we can glean some conclusions which should be enough for our purposes.
First, those who teach the Galatian heresy appear to be damned.
(Gal 1:8-9) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
(Gal 5:10b) The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
Paul certainly saves his harshest words for those teaching this error, doesn’t he? Remember that James teaches,
(James 3:1) Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
And so it only makes sense if we find that Paul judges the false teachers more harshly. And he could hardly have been more harsh!
As to those who were duped by the false teachers, Paul seems to be almost of two minds. For example, he repeatedly refers to his readers as “brothers.” He refers to them as being in “churches.” And he sometimes speaks as though they aren’t yet lost —
(Gal 5:1) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
(Gal 5:10a) I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view.
(Gal 3:26-27) You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
(Gal 4:9-11) But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
On the other hand, he also wrote,
(Gal 5:3-4) Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Verse 4 certainly says they had already fallen from grace! But, in context, it seems clear that Paul was looking ahead to what their state would be if they don’t repent. Therefore, the most natural reading is that the Galatians were still covered by grace — but in very serious jeopardy of losing their salvation.
Now, very honestly, I don’t know at what point someone fooled by this false teaching actually falls away. I just know that there is a point where it happens.Nor do I know just when someone goes from being a victim of false teachers to a false teacher. But it happens.
The point Paul makes is clear enough, however: If you fall for this lie not only could you lose your soul, you could take others down with you. Flee!
I think the key is in Gal 5:10 "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." Paul judged that those who were true brothers would heed his teaching on this matter, whereas the false teachers themselves (being as described in 1 Tim 6:5 "destitute of the truth" and Jude 19 "having not the Spirit") would persist in rebellion against Christ. Hence Paul felt an overwhelming assurance that these brethren would repent while the false teachers would bear their condemnation. I think 5:3 also helps understand the issue more clearly, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." These brethren had fallen from grace only so far as believing that circumcision was necessary for salvation, and probably were not even viewing it as a justifying act per se, and hence they had not accepted the wider implication of the false doctrine that they were being taught, i.e. they did not beleive that keeping the whole law was necessary to salvation or that a man could justify himself by observing the Law of Moses. They held an intermediate position. But of those who had accepted the wider implication of the false teaching and believed that keeping the whole law was necessary for salvation and that indeed saw themselves as justified by the law, he boldy says to them "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." These had totally fallen. Again, Gal 6:13 helps too, "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." The goal of the false teachers was to get people into thinking they had to practice the whole law in order to be justified, and they uses circumcision as their tool to confuse people. Those, therefore, who were confused into being circumcised but did not accept the notion that keeping the whole law was necessary to salvation, did not fall from grace, but those who accepting the notion of keeping the whole Law of Moses as necessary did fall from grace.
This is a sobering post for me, as I am in the midst of teaching 1 Corinthians on Sunday mornings, especially since next week is chapter 7.
All,
The sin of the Galatian teachers was not simply that they were in error — they contradicted the essence of the gospel, its sufficiency to save.
As I've explained in other posts (see the rest of the Amazing Grace series indexed at /index-under-construction/a… Paul says — and says plainly — that adding to the gospel destroys the gospel. In other words, if we make issues such as instrumental music or kitchens in the building or congregational autonomy into "marks of the church" or "tests of fellowship," we've effectively said that faith is not sufficient. Indeed, we've tried to be saved by works.
Paul says in 5:4 and surrounding verses that either you are justified by faith or by obedience to all of God's law. Take your pick but don't blend the two. If it's not faith, it's law. There's no in between.
Josh,
You've got it exactly backwards. The problem wasn't that the teachers insisted on obedience to the whole law.
(Gal 5:2-4) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Paul says that adding any one command to the gospel as a requirement to be saved — circumcision in this case — obligates the Christian to obey the entirety of God's law. As the Brits say, "In for a penny, in for a pound." There is no gospel that's a blend of law and grace. Pick one or other other: law or grace. And when you've insisted on even one law — such as circumcision — you've rejected grace and thus must obey all law.
Paul tells us what he means clearly —
(Gal 5:6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Salvation is based on nothing but faith and love. Adding anything else to it destroys it. "Only" means only.
Paul, of course, does not contradict baptism, which he affirms in 3:27. He is, rather, speaking of those in grace, not how one becomes in grace. Baptism is not a work of law. He is saying that that which saved us to begin with — faith, repentance — is sufficient to keep us saved.
Nor does he contradict the need to obey. He does, after all, insist on love. He says,
(Gal 5:14) The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
In other words, circumcision is not law because it has nothing to do with loving your neighbor.
Just so, instrumental music does not flow from the command to love our neighbors. See also Rom 13:8 ff. Therefore, it is not a mark of the church and it is not a test of fellowship.
In fact, Jesus himself declared that the true mark of the church would be love, in John 13.
Sadly, many of us have grown so enamored of our necessary inferences and binding examples that we've let them become marks of the church rather than our love — and we argue for them in a most unloving, even hateful way. We judge the motives of those we disagree with, we slander them with innuendo and gossip, and then we claim to be defending the faith.
You cannot defend the faith in an unloving manner! It's impossible. The true defense of the faith is showing love to our enemies. It's only when we truly turn the other cheek that Christ's love will be shown through us.
Or as Paul warned us,
(Gal 5:15) If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
This verse is very much on my heart as I see the wrangling and uncharitable behavior of many within the Churches.
Alan,
Regarding 1 Cor 7, you may want to check out /books-by-jay-guin/but-if-y….
Jay, when you said "Paul says in 5:4 and surrounding verses that either you are justified by faith or by obedience to all of God’s law. Take your pick but don’t blend the two. If it’s not faith, it’s law. There’s no in between." you have shown that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Law is. The Law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14), and slain (Eph 2:16), and is now in its grave decaying (Heb 8:13). Those Galatian heretics were attempting to revive a corpse! They were attempting a miracle, to raise the dead and decaying Law of Moses from the grave, and then to obey it perfectly and justify themselves by it. On the contrary, when a faithful Christian insists on (por ejemplo) the proper observance of the Lord's Supper as Jesus Himself instituted it (e.g. one loaf, one cup), then he is not attempting to usurp God's Authority and raise the Law from the dead. In fact, this has ZERO reference to the Law at all. The observance of the Lord's Supper is part of the New Testament, for which Christ died, as is said in Heb 9:16 "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Again, when the proper form of music is insisted on, it is in observance of the New Testament, not the Law. Actually, those who practice instrumental music are guilty of the Galatian heresy because they are attempting to resurrect the Law and its allowance of instrumental music (which by the way was only allowed for the Levites and not the common people).
Further, Jay my friend, the conclusion that understanding certain things to be marks of the church amounts to destroying the gospel or amounts to "effectively sa[ying] that faith is not sufficient" is just downright absurd. Clearly, observing the Lord's Supper is a mark of the church, for example. When we say that we will not fellowship a church that does not observe the Lord's Supper at all (I'm just going to say 'at all' and not add properly so as to keep you from missing the point) have we "effectively sand that faith is not sufficient"? If we insist on observing the Lord's Supper, have we denied the faith? Nay, but rather, we have asserted that we (unlike they) have faith. In that we observe the Lord's Supper while said other 'church' does not, we show that we have faith in Christ, for we beleive and practice the very teaching he gave us to "do this in remembrance of me" whereas they (although claiming to have faith in him) do not.
"Josh, You’ve got it exactly backwards. The problem wasn’t that the teachers insisted on obedience to the whole law."
I will agree. Although I think the *goal* of the false teachers was to eventual get them keeping the whole Law. That was the goal, but the problem was this: As I said in the last post above, they were attempting to resurrect the rotting corpse of the Law from the dead and practice some part of rather than just following the New Testament alone. That was the problem. Jesus died in order to accomplish many things, but the two that are of chief importance to this discussion are these: (1) to kill the Law (2) to establish the New Testament. If you try and replace the New Testament with the Law, you essentially take away the full work of Christ from your heart. If you try and bring back parts of the Law (circumcision, maybe some food laws other than those found in Acts 15, instrumental music, priestly vestaments [think Anglican or Methodist]) then you are bringing back bits and pieces of that which Christ died to kill! If Christ Jesus Himself felt that killing it was important enough to die for, shouldn't we let that corpse rest in peace and not dig it up and hook it to a respirator? Now my Calvinist friends will automatically think I am arguing against morality, because they confuse the Law with morality and forget that the Law is properly the Old Testament regulations of ALL sorts. Therefore, I say two things on morality (1) the OT morality is not moral enough for the Christian, as Jesus raised morality to a new level on the sermon on the mount, and therefore no Christian (although Calvinists aren't Christians due to their rejection of baptism's proper purpose, and sometimes recipient and mode too) ought to go to the OT for their morality, and (2) All the morality we need is taught in the New Testament, and when some reference to the Old Testament is needed, the New Testament refers us to it, as Acts 15 refers us to the OT to some extent for the definition of fornication (although clearly Jesus' teaching on divorce cannot be made subservient to the OT).
typo: "ought to go to the OT for their morality" should be "ought not go to the OT for their morality"
actually it was right the first time, just a run-on sentence
Josh,
You're picking up on a series of lessons that have been going on for several weeks now. The reasons you are mistaken are laid out in the lessons. Rather than repeating what already been said, let me urge you to start your reading at the beginning.
The lessons are indexed at /index-under-construction/a…
Hi Jay,
I've read your excellent paper. Very helpful perspective on a complex subject.