Legalism & Galatians Part 2: Law, Liberty & The Flesh
Image
In a previous post, I asserted that popular confusion about law, grace, and the Christian life is often partly due to misunderstanding what was happening in the Galatian churches and what Paul taught to correct it. I argued that the Galatian trouble centered on their understanding of justification and its relationship to Mosaic Law, and that they were led astray by unbelievers who, in reality, cared as little for the Law of Moses as they did for the gospel.
Seen in this light, the epistle does not encourage sweeping rejections of effort and struggle in the Christian life, nor does it provide a basis for excluding firm boundaries against sin (often termed “man-made rules”) in Christian living.
But loose ends remain. Further study of the letter not only resolves the remaining issues but also clarifies common points of confusion such as the distinction between conscious self-discipline vs. “the flesh” (or the non-biblical term, “self-effort”) and the difference between slavery to the Law vs. obedience to Christ.
Some Problem Passages
Galatians 5:1
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (ESV, Gal. 5:1)
“Freedom,” “free” and “yoke of slavery” are the key terms here. The “yoke of slavery” is often taken to refer to all forms of do’s and don’ts beyond what is expressly revealed in Scripture. Given the fact that the Galatian problem specifically referenced do’s and don’ts God had revealed in Scripture (“circumcision”—13 times!) this is an interesting application to derive from the text. It’s possible the reference to days, months, seasons, and years in Galatians 4:10 includes some “man-made rules,” but may just as readily refer to what God gave to Israel.
The “yoke of slavery” was not rules in general or even the Law of Moses, per se, but the corrupt teaching that the Law (or some parts of it) is the path to justification. How the justified go about living holy lives is not in view in 5:1.
So where does this view of 5:1 come from? In many cases, it’s simply read into the text for convenience. Others, though, are taking 5:1 in light of a faulty understanding of “the flesh” in Galatians 3:2-3.
Galatians 3:2-3
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:2-3)
Here, Paul seems to point out the absurdity of beginning their Christian experience through the work of the Spirit, then attempting to grow in holiness (sanctification) by self-effort. But what do the terms “the flesh” and “being perfected” actually mean? Rather than accepting our first impression as fact, perhaps we should take a closer look?
ESV’s and NASB’s “being perfected” translates the Greek epiteleo (present middle/passive). NIV (1984) paraphrases: “trying to attain your goal.” The 2011 NIV shows more restraint: “trying to finish” (so also NET). KJV and NKJV opt for “made perfect,” implying a completed act: “now made perfect.”
So is Paul correcting their understanding of their position in Christ (justification, etc.) or correcting their view of the Christian experience (sanctification)? The Greek is somewhat ambiguous on that point, so a study of “the flesh” in Galatians is helpful.
“The Flesh” in Galatians
The word for “flesh” (sarx) occurs 18 times in Galatians. Several of these refer to the physical body or some physical aspect,1 but the remainder speak of “the flesh” negatively in a variety of ways.2
Positionally, the flesh is dead through our union with Christ (Gal. 5:24a, Rom. 6:6-7), but in experience, it is still very much alive (Rom. 6:12-13, Colos. 3:5, 8—which, by the way, interprets Rom. 6:11). In Galatians, the flesh clearly includes a set of fallen appetites (Gal. 5:24b, “passions… desires”), and its “works” are various forms of indulgence of corrupt desires (Gal. 5:19-21). The flesh is anti-Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:17), anti-service (Gal. 5:13) and anti-good works (6:9). It is actually opposed to “fulfilling” the law (Gal. 5:14).
So if the flesh opposes good works and Law-fulfilling, what are we to make of the passages where Paul links the flesh to “the law” (3:2, 3:5)?
The answer lies in what we’ve already observed about the Galatian problem and Paul’s corrective teaching. Galatians 3:3 is surrounded by references to justification and is not a departure from that topic. Here’s the passage again with some context:
I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? … Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. (Gal. 2:21-3:7)
In this sequence, Paul begins with how we obtain righteousness and ends with how we become true sons of Abraham. These are both ways of speaking of our position with God, our standing, as is evidenced by the reference to what is “counted” as righteousness in Galatians 3:6 (compare Paul’s extended discussion of justification in Romans 4 based on the same quotation from Genesis 15:6).
In context, “now being perfected” refers to completing our standing with God, our justification—a foolish effort for at least two reasons: (1) the old covenant was never intended to justify, and (2) believers already stand in grace, fully justified by faith. There is nothing to perfect (finish).
What, then, does “in the flesh” refer to? It should come as no surprise that “the flesh” in Galatians 3:3 has the same meaning we see in all the other non-physical references in the epistle. It refers to the sinfulness that remains in believers. Since the Law is already fulfilled in Christ, and justification is already fully accomplished for those who believe, any effort to complete that standing through the Law is a farce. What is really driving that effort is pride, envy, strife, and similar “passions” and “desires” (5:24b).
Galatians 4:9-10
What about Paul’s reference to “turn[ing] back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more”? Is he speaking here of believers who know they are fully justified “returning” to personal effort as a growth strategy?
The understanding of 3:3 above has no difficulty here. These weak and worthless elementary principles are not the Law of Moses. The predominantly-Gentile Galatians could not “return” to those; rather, Paul indicates that attempting to be “more justified” through portions of a now-ended covenant is, in reality, an expression of pride, envy, strife, and various evil desires (see, again, Gal. 6:12-13).
To put it another way, if you have finished a journey, then try to somehow go further by stepping on to some stairs that are not actually there anymore, what you do is fall (Gal. 5:4).
Wrapping Up
“The flesh” in Galatians does not include the tiniest particle of desire to grow in Christlikeness or to bring God pleasure (Col 1:10, 2 Cor. 5:9) through disciplined obedience (1 Tim 4:7b-8), nor was calling believers to work hard at serving others and at growing in holiness any part of the Galatian error.
“The law” in Galatians refers either to the Mosaic Covenant itself or (possibly more often) the specific error of viewing Law as a path to justification. It does not refer to law as an abstraction, much less to “man-made rules.”
In most cases, “faith” in Galatians is the alternative to the false gospel of justification by works (e.g., Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 3:24). In this epistle, faith is not set up in opposition to works as a method of living the Christian life (i.e., sanctification). Indeed, the idea that we grow either by faith or by works is implicitly rejected in statements like these:
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. (Gal. 5:13)
And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9)
The word for “justify” (dikaioō) and its close cousin “righteousness” (dikaiosunē) appear thirteen times in 2:15-5:15, the section of the book that focuses on countering the Galatian error. As always in Paul, it refers to the believer’s standing before God and what is credited to him.
Galatians does not encourage us to view the Christian life as one in which nothing but faith is required of us, nor does it teach that growth in sanctification occurs by faith alone.
1 These are: 1:16, “anyone;” 2:16 “no one;” 2:20, “live in the flesh;” 4:13 “bodily ailment;” 4:14 “condition;” 4:23 & 29, “born…the flesh;” 6:13, “boast in your flesh.”
2 Negative references to “the flesh” in Galatians:
- in contrast with the Holy Spirit: Gal. 3:3, 5:16 & 17, 5:19 (cf. 5:22), 6:8
- parallel with the “works of the law”: Galatians 3:3 (compare Gal. 3:2, 3:4)
- what “freedom” may, but should not be, used for: Galatians 5:13
- in contrast to serving one another and “fulfil[ling]” the Law: Galatians 5:13-14
- what produces “works” such as “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife…and things like these”: Galatians 5:19-20
- what is already crucified: Galatians 5:24
- linked with “passions and desires”: Galatians 5:24
- sowing to it contrasted with doing good works: Galatians 6:8-9
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 42 views
Many reformed commentators do indeed understand Gal. 5:1 to include freedom from “man-made rules”. These include, if memory serves, John Gill, Matthew Henry, and the Westminster Divines (see Chapter 20 of the WCF). And I think such an understanding is legitimate on the basis of a greater to lesser sort of reasoning.
First, one could argue that any reinstitution of OT law that had been obsoleted amounts to a commandment of man, despite it being originally issued by God. Second, if those laws of God which have been set aside are not to be reinstituted for a believer, surely no rule of human formulation ought to be laid upon a believer’s conscience as divinely authoritative.
I think the greater to lesser argument doesn’t work unless the role “made made rules” in the argument has the same function as “God given rules.”
So the greater to lesser argument works in this case:
God given rules cannot justify, therefore man-made rules cannot either.
But this argument fails…
God given rules cannot justify, therefore man-made rules cannot sanctify (or, as the argument attempt so often goes in reality: man-made rules are just bad, bad, bad.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think the phrasing is generally along the lines of: Since the keeping of the law neither acquires nor maintains one’s just standing before God, man-made rules can do neither as well. But …
I understand that your primary concern here has been in regards to a sanctification by faith alone philosophy, but I’m uncomfortable with completely limiting the application of Gal 5 to justification. My reason is related to the fact that progress in one’s sanctification is indicated by more than one NT writer necessarily following justification and even as some legitimate basis for confidence in one’s being genuinely justified.
So when one believer’s violation of fence-like man-made rules (however well-intentioned) is treated as sin by other believers, it’s a problem germane to the teaching in the book of Galatians.
every doctrine and ordinance of men is a yoke of bondage which should not be submitted to; nay, any action whatever, performed in a religious way and in order for a man’s acceptance with God, and to obtain his favour, and according to his observance of which he judges of his state, and speaks peace and comfort to himself, or the reverse, is a yoke of bondage:
(emphasis mine)
I appreciate what David says, but let’s take a couple of examples from history where we have some man-made rules that we apply without sin, IMO.
Obvious one; slavery. The Bible does not ban it, but regulates it—but our man-made rule is that a man cannot participate on the “ownership” side because it requires man-stealing, violates Bibilcal rules of freeing the slave in seven years, and the like. In the same way, we ban polygamy because persuading a young woman to be a part time wife to an old man instead of a full time wife to a young man requires a certain level of violence, often including banishment, killing, and castration of rivals for her affections. Plus, Paul prohibits it for church leaders and notes that just one wife imposes something of a burden for serving God—what then with two or more?
Really any application of Scripture to situations today is going to involve some level of inference and application of Biblical principles—and hence one can reasonably see it as “man-made rules”. The question is not whether we do it, but rather whether we do it well, and how it relates to our doctrines of justification and sanctification.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[DavidO]… progress in one’s sanctification is indicated by more than one NT writer necessarily following justification and even as some legitimate basis for confidence in one’s being genuinely justified.
So when one believer’s violation of fence-like man-made rules (however well-intentioned) is treated as sin by other believers, it’s a problem germane to the teaching in the book of Galatians.
The first statement is certainly true. I don’t see how the second follows from it, though.
I’m pretty sure that, if they think it through, everyone believes that Scripture must be applied and that we are not living the life if we fail to do so. The problem is mostly a rhetorical one, but the rhetoric causes quite a bit of confusion.
What I mean is that people often talk as though man-made rules were a harmful or useless category of belief/practice, but I don’t think anybody really believes that. There is no Bible verse says it’s wrong to randomly kill kittens, but none of us would view that as Christian conduct. We have not bothered to codify it in church covenants or college handbooks, but it’s a rule nonetheless.
So… I’m kind of expanding on what Bert said there. Examples can be found of “man-made rules” that even the most ardent anti-legalists hold to.
The problem in Galatia (and with so many before them, really) was misunderstanding what law was meant to do, thinking it can justify or—in itself—transform. So both “OT saints” and “NT saints” are vulnerable to thinking that obedience secures or adds to justification, or the opposite error: thinking that obedience does not have a role in sanctification. But in both the old and new covenant arrangements, justification is by faith and transformation/holy living is, at least in part, through obedience.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1. Is Law keeping necessary for justification?
1a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
1b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
2. Is Law keeping necessary for sanctification?
2a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
2b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
2c. or, is it something else?
3. Is Law keeping simply a way do express our love for God and to enjoy His kindness in giving us commands that bring true joy?
3a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
3b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
3c. or, is it something else?
I’m thinking these questions might serve to help point out more precisely what you are thinking.
Ok, I think I have been less than clear. I don’t say that no application outside the express command can be made without creating a man-made rule that should be ignored. I also don’t say that man-made rules ought never be mandated in certain contexts in order to maintain order. I tried to specify what kinds of things I was talking about when I said “fence-like” man-made rules. I was trying to avoid examples to keep out of the weeds.
Like Bert, I would be opposed to slavery that involved ownership, man-stealing, or an indefinite term, but I don’t think everything historically called slavery is evil. And I certainly don’t think killing cats is wrong in every instance. Even some random ones. :)
I don’t think, though, everyone thought I was hoping to gain approval for the day I make my slave go on an unfettered (see what I did there?) kitten killing spree. :)
No, it’s killing kittens that is pure evil. Cats are fair game, absolutely. :D
On the more serious point, where I was going with that is that people often talk as though man-made-rules was an entirely useless or unhelpful category, but since they don’t really believe that, the energy would be better spent identifying where the real problem lies.
I’ve been working on that a bit, but it’s still sketchy. Seems like there are multiple fails on the list of “things that make people get disgusted with do’s and dont’s in general in the Christian life”
- Poorly supported: one of the most common scenarios is just that the arguments for saying “[this feature of our current culture] should be rejected by all real Christians” are just, frankly, stupid.
- Ignorance on the other end: sometimes the scenario is that the one doing the negative reacting just really not understand the cultural situation and is reacting emotionally to even the suggestion that a practice they dearly love might be wrong.
- Context of excess: the prohibition on the table is coming from an individual or ministry that devotes enormous amounts of energy to regulating externals, including what certainly seem to be (and maybe are) many very minute and petty details. So there is an impression (accurate or not, in varying degrees) that this is a superficial, externals-obsessed subculture.
- Inappropriate certainty & judgmentalism: often accompanies #1—the one declaring the prohibition is doing so with a level of dogmatism that isn’t warranted by the evidence, either in Scripture or in the culture… typically with implied or expressed harsh judgments of those who disagree.
These scenarios often give rise to charges of “legalism.” I think “legalistic” (in the sense of ‘resembling legalism’) is often appropriate. In some extreme cases, yes, ministries seem to even lose sight of what our standing in Christ is grounded in. “Right with God” blurs into “accepted by God” or even “loved by God” so—intentionally or otherwise—many get the impression they are pretty much losing their salvation if they don’t keep the rules. That is legalism in the purest sense.
More needs to be done to clarify the lingo “we” use when we’re talking about the Christian life and how God views “us” as opposed to “what we do.” Maybe I should do an article or two on that. (I don’t personally use “right with God” or “not right with God” in reference to obedience… because of the Revivalism-bred confusion this feeds…. that and the fact that Scripture doesn’t speak of believers in those terms… except to teach that they are always right with God. Rom. 5:1)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m going to insert some responses below…. hopefully it won’t look too confusing… I’ll bold them
[Dan Miller]1. Is Law keeping necessary for justification?
No. Never was.
1a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
It isn’t really relevant because there is no law, indeed could never be any law, that could justify. It just isn’t what law does.
1b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
2. Is Law keeping necessary for sanctification?
Yes. James and others even speak of “the law of Christ.” In Galatians Paul commends “fulfilling” the Law.
2a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
No. These folks distorted what God had given on many points…. though there main error was categorical: seeing law as path to justification
2b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
No
2c. or, is it something else?
It is a combination of what God has given us and what we do to apply it
3. Is Law keeping simply a way do express our love for God and to enjoy His kindness in giving us commands that bring true joy?
That would be oversimplification. The commands of the NT are intended for our good but also for God’s glory and our transformation. So they prescribe a “walk.” 2 Cor. 7:1, Eph.4.1, etc. The blessing/joy is often not apparent! Some (most?) of it is for eternity and not now at all!
3a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees? No. They didn’t have it right and even their “source” (Mosaic Code) is defunct.
3b. or, is it new laws as given by men today? See 2c above.
3c. or, is it something else?
I’m thinking these questions might serve to help point out more precisely what you are thinking.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Here are my answers.
[Dan Miller]1. Is Law keeping necessary for justification?
Yes, Someone had to keep the law perfectly to earn salvation.
1a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
1b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
Neither, it was the OT Law, correctly applied to life.
2. Is Law keeping necessary for sanctification?
2a. If so, then is it the OT Law as given and taught by the elders or Pharisees?
2b. or, is it new laws as given by men today?
2c. or, is it something else?
Something else. The OT Law, correctly applied to life(needs clarification!), is our new life. We are sanctified (position), and we reckon (accept our identity in Christ), repent (abandon our old man’s thoughts and accept the mind of Christ), kill the old man, and live by the Spirit.
But I am reluctant to say that all that Law keeping (even expressed as Law of Christ and Law of Love) is done for sanctification. It would be better to say that if it is done in the Spirit, it is our being sanctified.
And then the clarification above needs to be made.
In Galatians, the issue of OTLaw-pushing, rules of men, and slavery does violate the Gospel. So I think we’d agree that justification is at stake. The brand of legalism Paul is confronting in Galations ties works to justification.
The way I see it, there are two(+?) “brands” of legalism.
First of all, agreed with David that not all slavery is wicked—we ought to bring back the debtor’s prison for poilticians, for example. (but not kittens) On the light side, I read David’s comment initially as saying that he wasn’t opposed to slavery that involved man-stealing……don’t know if that’s my error or his, but I got a smile out of it and am not accusing him of desiring to recapture the Amistad from the liberated. :^)
Regarding Aaron’s list, it strikes me that when he points out many of our rules are poorly supported, he’s referring a lot to the logical fallacies we tolerate, like the various forms of the genetic fallacy (guilt by association is huge in our circles), the hasty generalization, and the non sequitur. Often this occurs when there is really no clear Biblical argument for the rule being proposed.
One thing about Dan’s list that bothers me a bit is the use of the word law…..here I think we can get away with it, but it strikes me that if I did it with a lot of people I go to church with, they’d definitely get confused vis a vis Paul’s use of it. I don’t have a really good solution—I tend to refer to God’s morality at times to differentiate from Paul’s usage (which I think really refers more closely to Talmud than the books of Moses in the context), but I’d love to hear from others (Ed Vasicek—you out there?) on this.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I’m not understanding your post, I think.
I don’t believe that keeping 100% of the law 100% of the time would result in justification, even if someone could do it. So where Jesus tells His interlocutor “do this and you will live,” or something similar, I’m inclined to think He is not speaking of justification. Luke 10:28-29… in v.29 the man desires “to justify himself.” … which was the real problem.
My main reason for taking the text this way is that if we understand Paul correctly on imputation, we are all guilty of Adam’s sin, and perfect law-keeping from cradle to grave would not cancel that out—it would simply keep our load of guilt (as in, culpability) from growing as we sin.
So there is no mechanism in law-keeping itself for…
a. canceling out the debt we are born with
b. transforming our character from corrupt to Christlike
We have to be credited with righteousness that is not our own, and once that is accomplished (along with adoption, union with Christ, Spirit indwelling, and more) we are able to engage in obedience that is part of a transformative process. But it never contributes to paying the sin-debt at all.
One more note… there are no “rules of men” in Galatians. At best, there are a couple of verses that might include that. But Paul’s focus on “circumcision” is not random. They really were mainly using the “rules of God” in the wrong way. (Admittedly, this turns them into “rules of men” in a backward sort of way: since they were no longer rules of God, what’s left? But this is not really the same thing as coming up with our own do’s and dont’s)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’ve been rolling this thread around mentally for a while, but I’m so out of it, I’m not sure I want to type out all my thoughts. But, I think I will start with some questions that trying to answer are very interesting even for me.
1. Aaron, the man-made rule to read your Bible every day is an excellent one. Can you please list, as comprehensively as you can, what you gain by obeying it? I mean, particularly in your relationship toward God and/or how God sees and views you when you obey or don’t obey this rule?
2. Anyone, about the slavery example, are there instances in which one could have a slave and be fulfilling the requirements of God better than if they refused to have a slave? I.e., what spiritual, Christ-like virtue is being portrayed in that rule (that slavery is wrong)?
3. Is it really possible to make a man-made rule that forces us to fulfill, or assures us that we are fulfilling, God’s law in our hearts (His law, to love him and love our neighbors)? Like, if a law cannot be made against love, joy, peace, long-suffering, etc., is it possible to make laws that enforce these things, not only in outward actions but in our inward beings (thoughts, intentions, motives, affections, etc)?
Discussion