"O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?"

      So far-reaching in its implications and consequences was the error of Peter (an error of conduct, not of doctrine) that the very principle of gospel-salvation was imperilled thereby. Paul's public rebuke of Peter, severe as it was, was most necessary, for the gospel itself was at stake. If circumcision and law-keeping must be super-added to the salvation which Christ wrought for us, the grace of God is made void and the efficacy of the cross of Christ is denied. This may not seem so evident to some of us today as it was to Paul's enlightened understanding, for, alas, Christendom has been Judaized and Galatianized these centuries, so that even otherwise well-taught believers may be somewhat non-plussed over all the fuss and fervor Paul raises in his epistle to the Galatians. Why was the matter so serious? Does it not seem as a small and pardonable kind of mistake, such as any of us would be prone to make about one thing and another? But nay--"Behold, I Paul say unto you that if ye receive circumcision Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4.) But let us now take up the beginning of the doctrinal discussion, which runs through chapters 3 and 4.¹

      Among the Galatians, as elsewhere, the burden of Paul's message was "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). This was not simply the relating of the story of Christ's crucifixion, as recorded in the four gospels. It was that, but much more. The matter of first importance was to declare who it was that was so crucified. That goes back to the love-story of God--"how eternal love its chief Beloved gave" (John 3:16); the incarnation (Gal. 4:4); the life and work and ministry of the Son of God; and how he "offered himself without blemish unto God." Then, why and for whom He was crucified; and what His death meant for us--what it was that was accomplished for us by His shameful death on the cross.

      Already in 1:4 Paul had stated the fact that He "gave himself for our sins"; and that thereby He delivered us "out of this present evil world." As the sacrifice for our sins, this could not have been anything less than perfect. Nothing could be added to its efficacy. Those who came under its benefits were wholly and entirely cleared [16] from sin (See Heb. 10:12-14), for He had borne their sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). But Christ's death not only atoned for their sins--it also changed the status of those who were so redeemed. Christ's death for them on the cross was representative and substitutionary. He died on their behalf and for them. In His death for them therefore, they died: His death was their death. Likewise in His resurrection they were raised. They were henceforth not reckoned any longer as common fleshly human beings, but as a people who as to their standing before God, had died and had been raised with and through Him (Rom. 6:2-11). They were therefore no longer of this world (though yet in it). Like Paul they could (and should) all have said, "I died unto the law"--for the law was meant for men in the flesh, and had dominion over men as long as they lived; but for those who died with Christ its dominion was terminated for ever (Rom. 7:1, 4, 6). It was for them all to say with Paul, "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 1:19, 20). This new status is not one of one's own personal attainment, as though it was to be effected by some great act of self-consecration or self-mortification; but it belongs freely to every one who is joined to Christ (Col. 2:12; 3:1). Having been baptized into Christ such a one stands on new ground. If then they had so "died with Christ to the rudiments of the world"--i. e. carnal regulations and fleshly rites, why would any subject themselves to circumcision and law-observance? (Col. 2:20).

      This is what amazed Paul. Did they not know this? Had not Jesus Christ been openly set forth before their eyes, crucified? Had they forgotten what this meant? Who had thrown an evil spell over them--by what devilish witchery had their minds become so addled that they would now turn back to circumcision and law-observance--"weak and beggarly rudiments of the world whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again" (Gal. 4:9)?

      Nor was this all. More questions follow. These Galatians had received the Holy Spirit. This was beyond dispute. They knew that--at least by the miraculous gifts and manifestations, such as accompanied the apostle's preaching everywhere (Rom. 15:18, 19; 1 Cor. 12:5-7, etc.). Was it then, by works of the law or through the reception of the message of faith that they had received the Spirit? Of course the latter. So he says

      "This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit are ye now perfected in the flesh?

      More questions yet. At the hands of their countrymen (stirred up by disobedient Jews) they had suffered severe persecutions (comp. Acts 14). Was it all in vain? For if they had accepted circumcision from the first, there would not have been any persecution (Gal. 5:11). And Paul--who wrought miracles among them, and through the laying on of whose hands they had received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (comp. Acts 8:17, 18)--did he come as a messenger of the Law? Did he do his great work by works of the law or as the representative of the message of faith? Not by works of the law, but by the hearing [17] of faith--"even as Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness."

      And with this reference to Abraham he begins a new line of argument, contrasting the faith of Abraham with the works of the law; which we will take up in the next lesson.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

      Why, if the matter of receiving circumcision is as fatal as Paul declares (Gal. 5:2-4)--why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Some have thought to see an inconsistency in this. But the cases are different. Timothy, because his mother was a Jewess, was considered as a Jew. Now circumcision and the ritual of the Old Testament was handed down to Israel from their fathers, and by scripture-teaching. When Jews became Christians God permitted their continuance in Old Testament practices--circumcision, temple worship, feasts, rites and regulations of the law. But with one all-important proviso: they were not to regard these things as a ground of salvation (Acts 15:10, 11; Gal. 2:15, 16). The Jewish Christians' continuance of the O. T. worship and service was henceforth to be to them but pious national custom, memento of the past, prophecy of the new order now brought in through Christ.

      In Christ both Jew and Gentile receive a true circumcision. The O. T. circumcision was a mark in the flesh; but the circumcision of Christ is the entire "putting off of the body of the flesh"--the execution, as it were, of "the old man" (Col. 2:11; Rom. 6:6). [18]

[PLG 16-18]