Be Free! (Gal 5:1)

Translation & Textual Notes

The Law is of no benefit (5:2-4)

Translation & Textual Notes

Structure:

• Declaration:
  • Circumcision is not an asset (2)
  • Circumcision is a liability (3)
• Relying on the law separates you from Christ (4)

Purpose: For the first time in this Epistle, Paul directly addresses the issue of circumcision, though it was no doubt clear to the Galatians that he had been building towards this all along. In particular, he has expounded the theme of freedom in chapters 3 and 4, ending in the climactic exhortation of 5:1: ‘To freedom Christ has set us free; therefore stand firm and do not be burdened again by the yoke of slavery.’ In 5:2, he turns from theory to practice by applying what he has said to the Galatian situation. This marks the commencement of the parenetic section of the Epistle.

Gal 5:2. ἴδε is common in the gospels, but is found only here in the rest of the NT. It is used to draw attention to something.¹ This, along with the lack of a conjunction joining this verse to the previous, requires a pause from the reader, lending great weight to what follows. This is amplified by the solemnity of Paul’s address. In supplying the superfluous personal pronoun, ἐγὼ, and his name, Paul is mustering every ounce of his apostolic authority and pouring it into this declaration: being circumcised negates the value of being in Christ.

The form of Paul’s declaration is akin to an oath, an impression strengthened by his repetition and use of the verb μαρτύρομαι in the next verse. Clearly Paul is ‘on trial’, as has been the case throughout the Epistle, and here the forensic language is particularly strong. Thus he demands a verdict from the Galatians, which will serve as the basis of the parenesis that constitutes the remainder of the Epistle.

Gal 5:3. The Apostle goes on to provide the grounds for this statement: submitting to part of the law requires submission to all of it. He thus argues from a specific case to a more general rule, taking circumcision as representative of the requirements of the law in general.

Paul punctuates his point with rhetorical word-play. Circumcision means the Galatians do not profit (ὠφελήσει) by Christ, but are rather in debt (ὀφειλέτης) to the whole law.

Much ink has been spilled over the latter half of the verse. The key issues are: (1) what is the frame of reference when Paul speaks of τὸν νόμον? (2) Did Paul believe it was possible to do (ποιῆσαι) the entire law? On the first, we may note at once that τὸν νόμον must include at a minimum the Pentateuch, since it is circumcision that is at issue here. Gal 4:10 may also give us an indication that this extended to the OT canon at large. It seems unlikely, however, that Paul would acknowledge the Pharisaic traditions, which he refers to as παράδοσις in 1:14, as νόμος here. As for whether Paul believed ‘doing’ the ‘whole’ law possible, the direction of his argument suggests not. For he moves on to speak in verse 4 of falling away from grace as a foregone conclusion. The two verses form an enthymeme, with the unstated minor premise that it is not possible to do all the law.

Gal 5:4. This verse draws the required conclusion from the previous verse. Those who seek justification have ‘severed’ (κατηργήθητε) themselves from Christ and ‘fallen from grace’ (τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε). δικαιοῦσθε may be passive (‘be justified’), or middle (‘justify themselves’) but the emphasis is on the ineffectuality of the act, rather than the agent, and the point remains the same in either case.

This verse accounts for proponents of the NPJ who claim that Paul has here misunderstood (or at least misrepresented) Judaism as a works-religion, when it was actually based on ‘covenantal nomism’. Jews, so the argument goes, did not require absolute perfection in obedience to the law. The OT cultus was provided as a means of ‘grace’, with atonement being made for imperfections. Observance of the law was required as a means of remaining within the covenant of grace, much in the way that the Israelites were required to remain within their homes during the first Passover. Quite apart from the difficulty inherent in believing that a such an advanced student of Judaism (1:14) should have so fundamentally misunderstood the religion for which he was so zealous, it is clear from this verse that if Paul had once considered OT sacrifice as a means ‘of grace’, he did so no longer.

Parenesis

Translation & Textual Notes

Endnotes

1. BDAG, “ἴδε”, 1