Freedom In Christ Versus Falling From Grace

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

An Exposition Of Galatians 5:1-12 [1]

Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. During his academic career he held professorships in New Testament and Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. At the time of his death in January 2004 he was Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Dallas Seminary. Both MP3 files and printed notes of Dr. Johnson’s sermons and theological lectures may be downloaded from the web site of Believers Chapel «www.believers-chapel.org/index.html».

Introduction

“‘Freedom’ is a word on everybody’s lips today,” John Stott has said, adding, “There are many different forms of it, and many different people advocating it and canvassing it. There is the African nationalist who has gained ‘Uhuru’ for his country—freedom from colonial rule. There is the economist who believes in free trade, the lifting of tariffs. There is the capitalist who dislikes central controls because they hinder free enterprise and the communist who claims to set the proletariat free from capitalist exploitation. There are the famous four freedoms first enunciated by President Roosevelt in 1941, when he spoke of ‘freedom of speech everywhere, freedom of worship everywhere, freedom from want everywhere, and freedom from fear everywhere.’” [2]

But what is biblical freedom? When we speak of biblical freedom, we generally have in mind freedom from the guilt of sin. This freedom comes through the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ. “And having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness,” the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 6:18 (cf. v. 22).

In his epistle to the Galatians Paul also speaks of freedom, but in the context of this letter it is freedom from the law of Moses that he has in mind. The apostle says that believers “are no longer under a guardian,” the guardian of the law (cf. 3:24–25, ESV). [3] Believers have been redeemed from bondage to the law (cf. 4:4–5). Now Paul does not mean that believers are free from the law of Moses as a way of salvation. The law was never a means of salvation. It was, however, the rule of life for the Israelites, and, since the apostle has said that a change came with the present age (cf. 4:1–7), the change must have concerned the law as a rule of life. Freedom from the law is, then, freedom from a false understanding of the law as a means of salvation, as well as freedom from the law as a rule of life. Believers are free from the law!

Now, of course, the apostle does not mean by this that believers, since they are not under the law of Moses, are free to sin. God forbid! The moral law of the Ten Commandments, a part of the law of Moses, still represents a fundamental revelation of the holiness of the God of the Bible. It remains a test of the righteousness of the believer’s walk (cf. Rom. 8:3–4). But the law of Moses, as law, has been done away with (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6–18). Believers are now under the Spirit, and life controlled by the Spirit fulfills the righteous requirements of the law. Liberty from the law does not mean license, although the legalists who did not understand Paul inferred this blasphemous idea about the believer’s freedom (cf. Gal. 5:13–15).

The passage before us in this message contains a clause, “you have fallen from grace” (v. 4), that has been at the center of a great deal of confusion in the professing Christian church. There are large religious bodies who affirm, “Christians may fall from grace,” meaning by “grace” salvation. They maintain, in short, that a believer may lose his or her salvation. Then there are other religious bodies who steadfastly maintain, “A believer cannot fall from salvation,” although they have often felt a little uneasy about Galatians 5:4, the verse in which the expression “fallen from grace” is found. To put it most bluntly, Presbyterians and Methodists, Baptists and Lutherans, have argued the question for generations. Can a Christian fall from grace? And if so, what is the meaning of the expression? That problem we shall try to solve in the exposition of the passage.

With this text (Gal. 5:1–12) we come to the third and final section of Galatians. In it, the great apostle exhorts the beloved believers in Asia Minor to allow the salvation that God has brought to them to issue in the ethical life of righteousness and true holiness. And if the Galatians, since the law of Moses has been done away, are wondering about divine guidance in the life of a Christian, Paul in this section of the letter (chapters 5–6) points them to the new Leader who has taken the place of the law, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune God. The Holy Spirit is able to do what the law could not do, bring sanctification and holiness to the Galatians. But first the apostle must urge his readers to stand fast in their new liberty.

The Appeal To Freedom, Verse 1

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (NASB).

The Declaration, Verse 1a

The first verse contains a very difficult textual problem, but the majority of modern critics believe that the text Paul wrote was, “For (this) freedom Christ has set us free. Stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” [4] We shall accept this as the preferred text. The opening words, then, are a declaration of independence from the law. The freedom referred to is that mentioned in 4:31, a freedom produced in the Galatians by the Spirit through Christ’s saving work on the cross. Our conscience has been set free from the guilt of sin. It is the freedom of forgiveness, acceptance with God, and access to him by the blood of Christ.

The Imperative, Verse 1b-c

How foolish, in view of our freedom, to take up the yoke of bondage again. “The picture seems to be of an ox bowed down by a heavy yoke. Once it has been freed from this crushing yoke, it is able to stand erect again (cf. Lev. 26:13).” [5] Cf. Acts 15:1, 10.

Christianity, then, is freedom, not bondage. That must be kept in mind constantly, for the legalists are always on the alert to intrude their doctrine into the minds and hearts of the saints.

The Argument Against Circumcision, Verses 2-6

Behold I, Paul, [6] say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

The Content Of The Argument, Verses 2–4

The general theme of freedom leads the apostle to a further word regarding the catastrophic effects of adherence to the doctrine of circumcision as the Judaizers held it. That is, that circumcision is a necessity for salvation.

One might wonder why Paul was so disturbed by the relation of circumcision to salvation. The next three verses answer the question. He states that there are three serious results of the confusion of circumcision with salvation by faith. First, Christ profits nothing in that case. Second, Christ becomes of no effect to such a person. Third, those who hold such a doctrine after having believed in Christ for salvation fall from grace (cf. vv. 2, 4). Thus, to add circumcision to faith in the saving work of Christ is to lose him and to fall from grace. As Stott points out, “you cannot have it both ways. It is impossible to receive Christ, thereby acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and then receive circumcision, thereby claiming that you can.” [7]

The tenses of the verbs in verses 2 through 4 are very important. In verse two the verb translated “if you receive circumcision” (ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε [ean peritemnēsthe]) is a present tense and might be rendered, “be receiving circumcision.” Cole suggests the rendering, “if you should get yourselves circumcised.” [8] In verse 3 the participle rendered “who receives circumcision” (περιτεμνομένῳ [peritemnomenō]) is also in the present tense and may be rendered “that is receiving circumcision,”or even, “that is trying to be circumcised.” And in verse 4 the word rendered “to be justified” (δικαιοῦσθε [dikaiousthe]) is also a present tense, and it is probably to be rendered “trying to be justified,” being conative in force. Each of these verbs makes it plain that the Galatians are not past recall. The fateful step has not been taken with finality (cf. 1:6), although they are seriously considering it. They had accepted some of the “gospel” of the legalists (cf. 4:10), but circumcision is their final goal. That would be complete victory. The present tense in verse 2 lays great stress on their willingness to receive the act. As Lightfoot points out, “It is not the fact of their having been circumcised which St. Paul condemns (this is indifferent in itself), but the fact of their allowing themselves to be circumcised, being free agents.” [9]

In verse 3 we see the alternatives. It is either wholly Christ or the wholly law. It is either debtorship to Christ or debtorship to the law, “the whole Law.”

The fourth verse is a very important statement regarding the insufficiency of justification by law of any kind. To think that circumcision is necessary to salvation is to say that Christ and his death are not enough. And, since he claimed it was enough when he said, “It is finished” (cf. John 19:30), to affirm circumcision is to disagree with Christ. It is to be severed from him.

To seek to be justified by law, then, is to be severed from Christ and the benefits of his atoning work. [10] It is to fall from grace. Now, many have said that to fall from grace is to fall from salvation, and the unscriptural notion that a man can be saved and afterwards lost has been grounded upon this text and others. But let us note what it says. In the first place, Paul does not say that, if the Galatians were seeking to be justified by the law (by the rite of circumcision), they would fall from salvation. He says that they would fall from grace (cf. Acts 13:43). In the second place, the apostle is not speaking of moral conduct, but of methods of coming to Christ, and that is the sense of the word grace in his letters in many places (cf. 1:6; 2:21; Eph. 2:8–9). We also know from many passages of the Bible that a great sin does not cause one to lose one’s salvation. Finally, let me say this. Such teaching is impossible to square with the New Testament doctrine of the perseverance of the saints—or, as some have called the doctrine, the perseverance of the Savior. As a matter of fact, when one commits a sin, he does not fall from grace, but rather into grace, into the gracious provision of a Father who loves so much that he disciplines and restores to his favor the fallen saint.

Is Paul, then, saying that to seek justification by law is to fall from salvation? No. He is simply saying that, after having believed in Christ, to turn away from Christ alone and faith alone is to turn to a legal method of salvation. It is to fall from the principle of grace that rules in the divine plan of salvation. Thus, one may fall from grace, but not from salvation, and the way that one falls from grace is to fall into law. To be unwilling to trust Christ wholly is to fall from grace. Such unwillingness manifests itself in the addition of law-works for salvation.

It is rather ironic that large religious bodies have fought so over the text, misunderstanding its force in its context. It is true, as Methodists have claimed, that one may fall from grace, but only from grace in the sense of a method of salvation. One cannot fall from salvation. And it is true that the Presbyterians are right in claiming that a man cannot fall from salvation. He can, however, contrary to the terminology often employed by them, fall from grace. He does that by falling into law.

The Confirmation Of The Argument, Verses 5-6

The apostle substantiates the preceding by saying in verses 5 and 6 that, contrary to the legalist, the believer by the Spirit waits (a word expressing faith) for the consummation of his present righteous standing. [11] He does not work for this; he waits for it by faith. For in Christ it is only faith that counts.

The expression “faith working through love” (v. 6) is a very significant one. The order of things in the ethical life of the believer is this: First, the Spirit brings life and gives faith to the elect soul. Second, faith in a Messiah who loved us to the extent that he did evokes a love in us, a love also given by the Holy Spirit. Third, this love of Christ constrains us to works of love. Thus, it is a faith that works through works of love. It is not that works of love are added to faith as another ground of our salvation (cf. Roman Catholic view). [12] It is simply that the faith which saves is a faith that issues in love. Faith works, that is, faith is operative or effective through love. It is in this way that the law is fulfilled (cf. v. 14).

It is possible that the apostle refers to the love of Christ, rather than to the Spirit-induced love of the believer, when he speaks of “faith working through love.” We might then paraphrase, “faith working through Christ’s love” (cf. 2:20; Rom. 5:5–8; 8:35–39). [13] The resultant meaning is not much different from the suggested sense. Verse 22, in which love is said to be the fruit of the Spirit, probably supports the first of the two interpretations.

Thus, Paul has said a very significant thing: Circumcision does not work, but faith does. Motivated by the mighty love of God manifested in Christ in grace, it accomplishes all things.

The Admonition Against The False Teachers, Verses 7-12

You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished. I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

The Origin Of Their Doctrine, Verses 7–8

In these verses the apostle considers the Galatians’ past in relation to their present defection. They had been running the Christian race nobly, but someone had cut in on them. The picture is that of a race in which runners were forced to leave their course by others cutting them off. They had not stopped running, but they had been thrown off course. The use of the term “obeying” (πείθεσθαι [peithesthai]) would seem to suggest that to run well is not simply to believe the truth (to be orthodox in the faith), nor simply to behave well (to be morally upright), but to “obey the truth,” that is, to believe and to behave well (cf. James 2:14–26).

In the eighth verse the apostle states that the influence that has led to their disobedience has not come from God, the one who calls.

The Effect Of The Teaching, Verses 9–10

The perilous effect of the teaching is now alluded to. A little bit of false teaching acts like leaven (cf. 1 Cor. 5:6). Leaven in the Word of God is used figuratively for that which is evil (cf. Matt. 16:12, etc.), either of doctrine or of practice. The fact that the apostle uses the word “little” may indicate that the efforts of the teachers had only made a beginning. A beginning, however, is dangerous. “A little yeast alters the entire dough; and the entire dough never turns the yeast into dough,” Lenski wisely points out. [14]

The apostle is confident of the final outcome, and he writes in verse 10, “I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.” The confidence seems at first glance to be misplaced, for the Galatians have appeared in the epistle to this point as weak and fickle, but the source of Paul’s confidence is not in them but “in the Lord.” The troubler referred to in the latter part of the verse is probably not a definite figure, for the construction of the last clause is technically an indefinite relative clause. The clause is future in sense and refers to anyone who may afterward trouble them. [15]

The Contrast Between The False Teachers And Paul, Verses 11–12

Paul’s feeling that error will not triumph in Galatia does not prevent him from answering the charges of the Judaizers that he, too, preached circumcision and from expressing a bitter wish that they would emasculate themselves.

It is true that Paul had had Timothy circumcised, and it may be that the Judaizers had attempted to make capital of that event (cf. Acts 16:3; 21:24). But, as Lenski points out, “These Judaizers were blind to the common fact that, when two do the same thing, it may not be the same thing.” [16] They did it to obtain justification, while he did it in order not to offend the conscience of the Jews and to win souls to Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 7:18, 20; 9:20). The apostle makes the point, too, that if he were still preaching circumcision, then he would not be being persecuted. To preach circumcision is to tell men that they can save themselves by their good works. That is pleasing to the ears of men and does not provoke persecution. But to tell men that they may be saved only in grace, and to preach Christ crucified as the only way of salvation, is to offend men and provoke their persecution. Since Paul was being persecuted, it is clear that he was not preaching circumcision (cf. 6:12). Persecution and opposition is a mark of every genuine minister of the truth of Christianity. The Isaacs are always maligned by the Ishmaels (cf. 2 Tim. 3:12).

To add anything to the cross, such as legal work, that is, church membership, baptism, benevolences, etc., is to render idle the death-dealing (the offence) of the cross. It was all right to mix Christ crucified with the law, but to eliminate the law entirely in justification was intolerable to the Judaizers and, in Stephen’s case, brought the accusation, “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law” (cf. Acts 6:13, italics inserted).

The final words of the apostle seem very coarse and vulgar to our ears. The word translated “even mutilate themselves” (ἀποκόψονται [apokopsontai]) probably refers to emasculation. Thus, the apostle is simply saying that the Judaizers, since they were so enthusiastic about circumcision, ought to go all the way and castrate themselves, or make eunuchs of themselves, as the priests of Asia Minor did in the worship of their barbarous and wicked gods. It is a vivid, blunt statement, but by it the apostle sets circumcision in its rightful place, since the age of the law has ended. It is now just one of many ritual cuttings and markings practiced in the ancient world. God had once used it as the sign of the covenant in Israel, but its usefulness has now passed (cf. John 7:22–23; Phil. 3:2).

Conclusion

Freedom is one of the great words of human life and experience, and that is no doubt why it is on everybody’s lips to this day, but its greatest usefulness is in expressing the freedom of a Christian. Freed from the entanglements of a salvation by human merit, a salvation that he cannot earn due to his fallen nature, the Christian is now justified by the principle of grace, grounded upon the finished work of the cross of Christ. The salvation of God in Christ, received by the instrumentality of faith, makes that person truly free.

Circumcision means law-works and bondage; Christ and his cross mean grace, faith, and freedom. May the Lord deliver us from the error of legalism, from falling from the grace method! May our trust be first and foremost and always in him who loved us and loosed us from our sins in his own blood!

Notes

1. This is article thirteen in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (London: Inter Varsity Press, 1968), 139.
3. The word translated “tutor” (NASB) or “schoolmaster” (KJV) is παιδαγωγός (paidagōgos). The translations “disciplinarian” (NRSV) or “guardian” (ESV) are to be preferred. For a fuller discussion, cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Once in Custody, Now in Christ: An Exposition of Galatians 3:23–29, ” The Emmaus Journal 13 (Winter, 2004): 213–15.
4. The NKJV, following the majority text, transfers the οὐν (oun, “therefore”) to the first clause, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free” (cf. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text [Nashville: Nelson, 1982], 578). The external (i.e., manuscript) evidence, however, favors placing the οὐν after the imperative “stand” (στήκετε). Most scholars, today, agree with a rendering like that of the NASB, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm.…” The οὐν was moved to soften what some scribe felt was the rather abrupt beginning of verse 1. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 597; Ernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: Clark, 1921), 270–71; Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1990), 223.
5. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 132.
6. “Paul speaks with the authority of an apostle of Jesus Christ—the apostle of Jesus Christ, so far as his Galatian readers are concerned—but he does not expressly invoke his apostolic authority in giving them the serious warning which immediately follows. ‘This is Paul speaking to you’— Paul whom you know, Paul your friend and father in Christ, not ‘the brothers who are with me’ (1:2) but I, Paul, myself. Others had apparently undertaken to say what Paul believed or practiced in the matter of circumcision (cf. v. 11); here is Paul’s own account” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 229).
7. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 133.
8. Alan Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 139. Bruce takes the verb as a middle voice, “if you have yourselves circumcised” (The Epistle to the Galatians, 229). Paul here uses a third class condition (ἐάν with the subjunctive in the protasis and any form of the verb in the apodosis), which suggests “that the Galatians’ circumcision was a fact still pending” (Longenecker, Galatians, 225–26).
9. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 204.
10. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (1937; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 257.The present tense of the word translated “to be justified” (δικαιοῦσθε) is conative, as we have said above. The conative (tendential, voluntative) present “portrays the subject as desiring to do something (voluntative), attempting to do something (conative), or at the point of almost doing something (tendential)” (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 534).
11. Paul writes, “For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness” (v. 6). Bruce comments, “Paul in this letter makes minimal reference to the Christian hope. Here is such a reference, however: by contrast with the vain hope of righteousness by legal works, he says, we who believe in Christ are enabled by the Spirit, through faith, to wait confidently for the hope of righteousness. The law holds out no such sure hope as this. The ‘hope of righteousness’ is the hope of a favorable verdict in the last judgment (Rom. 2:5–16). For those who believe in Christ such a verdict is assured in advance by the present experience of justification by faith, with its concomitant rejoicing ‘in hope of the glory of God’ (Rom. 5:1–2; cf. 1 Thess. 5:8, ‘the hope of salvation’)” (The Epistle to the Galatians, 231–32).
12. “Here, however, we must guard against the misunderstanding current especially in Catholic theology (though Protestantism is far from exempt) that only faith made perfect in love leads to justification. This represents a serious distortion of the relationship between faith, love, and justification. In speaking of justification Paul never talks of faith and love, but only of faith as receiving. Love is not therefore an additional prerequisite for receiving salvation, nor is it properly an essential trait of love; on the contrary, faith animates the love in which it works. Thus love and other ‘fruits of the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:22–24) are not to be conceived as preconditions of justification: instead, Paul says, justification is their precondition and the root from which they grow” (Gunther Bornkamm, Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1971], 153).
13. George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, MNTC (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934), 157. For a full discussion of the exegetical issues, cf. Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 228–30.
14. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, 267.
15. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 285. “In itself ὁ ταράσσων [‘the troubler’] might refer to a particular individual identified or unidentified, and the troubling might be present, past, or future. But the indefinite relative clause, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ [‘whoever he is’], referring to the future…requires us to take ὁ ταράσσων as designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but as referring to anyone who hereafter may disturb them.”
16. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians, 269.