Galatians 5:2-4 In Light Of The Doctrine Of Justification

By Monte A. Shanks

[Monte Shanks is Assistant Professor of New Testament, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, Virginia.]

Galatians 5:2-4 is a prime example of a New Testament passage that presents interpretive challenges. Unfortunately some interpreters give little consideration to the context of the passage, and by doing so they negatively impact their ability to understand the passage. This article addresses the context of the passage and seeks to interpret it accurately.

The Context Of Galatians

From Paul’s perspective the situation among believers in Galatia had changed dramatically since his last visit. When Paul left Galatia, he apparently felt comfortable about the church’s future.[1] His letter, written a short time afterward, however, demonstrates that the situation at the church had changed for the worse and that he was now concerned for its spiritual condition. In reading Galatians one gets the impression that Paul was perplexed as to how this situation could have occurred and what to think about the young church (1:6; 3:1, 3; 4:8-11, 15, 19-20).

Failure to recognize that Paul viewed the situation at Galatia as changed creates the potential for an interpretive error with respect to understanding 5:2-4. Some writers assume that all of Galatians was directed only to believers and that nowhere in the epistle did Paul address unbelievers or his opponents.[2] Some do not consider the possibility that in writing Galatians Paul was confronting an audience composed of people in different spiritual conditions.[3]

Since the Galatian situation had changed, the possible groups Paul addressed in this epistle need to be identified before approaching the target passage. The first group is believers. That group was composed of two subgroups. The first subgroup is Jewish believers. This is evident from passages such as 2:15-17 and all of chapter 3, in which Paul explained the purpose of the Law and the Abrahamic covenant. Most likely the church at Galatia included Jewish believers, and they possibly comprised the majority.[4] The second subgroup is believing Gentiles. This is obvious because the rite of circumcision was at the heart of Paul’s debate in Galatians, and since Jewish men were circumcised at birth it is clear that Paul was also addressing Gentile men.

Another group is Gentile unbelievers who had inappropriately professed an allegiance to Christ, some of whom may have begun associating with the churches of Galatia (as seekers) since Paul’s departure. Naturally there were also some Jews in this category, but with respect to the target passage they were not Paul’s primary concern. A fourth group is Paul’s opponents, that is, Judaizers and Gentiles who sided with them.[5]

The Problem Facing The Galatian Churches

Having received word that the situation in Galatia had changed for the worse, Paul wrote a most impassioned letter. One immediately senses Paul’s urgency in 1:6, where he wrote, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel.”[6] Concerning Paul’s abrupt chastisement, Boice wrote,

At this point Paul would normally introduce an expression of praise for the Christians of the church to which he is writing . . . . But here, instead of an expression of praise there is an abrupt and indignant cry of astonishment at what seems to be happening among the Galatians. . . . According to reports that had come to him, Paul had reason to believe that the Christians of Galatia are on the point of turning from the gospel of Christ to embrace something that was no gospel at all, but only legalism. So in this brief expression of his feelings, Paul declares his astonishment at this almost inconceivable turn of events.[7]

What had changed in Galatia, and why did it cause such a drastic response from Paul? Simply stated, a new group was negatively influencing the congregations in Galatia. Paul, however, was familiar with these agitators, commonly referred to as “Judaizers.” He had previously encountered this group or those of their ilk, as he stated in 2:11-21. They had been granted an audience and were promoting the idea that faith in Christ alone was insufficient[8] and that circumcision (and by extension obedience to the Mosaic law) was necessary for Gentile believers if they wished to participate in the Abrahamic blessings that accompany salvation.[9] These Judaizers were attempting to subjugate Gentile believers to the theology and culture of Judaism.[10] As noted, Boice labeled this alteration of the gospel as a turning to “legalism.”[11] Legalism, however, is too kind a word for this contamination of grace. Paul referred to this perverted gospel as a counterfeit and stated that those promoting it deserved eternal condemnation (1:6-9). To Paul this teaching was clearly a case of heresy. Therefore it is a gross error to refer to these agitators as legalists, for by their very doctrine and behavior they revealed that there was nothing “Christian” about them.[12] Clearly then in Galatians Paul was addressing not only believers, but also opponents of the gospel and any who were considering their message.

Paul’s Theology Of Justification

In addition to recognizing the diversity of Paul’s audience and how the situation in Galatia had changed, a brief description of Paul’s theology of justification will aid interpreting Galatians 5:2-4. Simply put, justification is secured and declared by God’s grace through a sinner’s union with Christ and His righteousness. Erickson defined justification in this way:

One of the objections sometimes raised to the [doctrine] of . . . forensic justification is that virtue simply cannot be transferred from one person to another. What should be borne in mind, however, is that this is not so external a matter as it is sometimes regarded. For Christ and the believer do not stand at arm’s length from one another; so that when God looks squarely at the believer, he cannot also see Christ with his righteousness but only pretends to. Rather, Christ and the believer have been brought in such a unity that Christ’s spiritual assets, as it were, and the spiritual liabilities and the assets of the believer are merged. Thus, when looking at the believer, God the Father does not see him or her alone. He sees the believer together with Christ. . . . He declares what is actually true of the believer which has come to pass through God’s constituting the believing one with Christ.[13]

Paul used the term “to justify” (δικαιόω) several times, but some passages present his view more clearly than others. One such passage is Romans 5:9, where Paul wrote, “Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Schreiner wrote, “Both the aorist tense of the participle and the adverb νῦν (nyn, now) indicate that righteousness is an accomplished reality. . . . The means of justification was the blood of Christ.”[14] Justification is not something believers strive to earn. Instead it is received by God’s declaration of the sufficiency of a historical event, which was Jesus’ death on the cross. When sinners receive Jesus’ atoning sacrifice as payment for their sin, God declares them justified.

In 1 Corinthians 6:11 Paul wrote, “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Again this passage demonstrates that Paul viewed the believer’s justification as an accomplished act. Fee, while discussing Christian baptism, argued the following.

The two prepositions [ἐν and εἰς] and the three verbs [“washed, sanctified, justified”] all go together; and there is no parallel in Paul’s usage to the assertion that one is sanctified or justified at baptism. That is not to say that for Paul the verb may not have carried with it an indirect allusion to baptism; but it is to say that Paul is not here concerned with the Christian’s initiatory rite, but the spiritual transformation made possible through Christ and effected by the Spirit. . . . Together, then, the two prepositions refer to what God has done for his people in Christ, which he has effected in them by the Spirit.[15]

As in Romans 5:9, this passage shows that Paul viewed justification as something God accomplished for the benefit of the believer, not something the believer was in the process of achieving.

In Titus 3:7 Paul wrote, “So that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” This verse shows that Paul viewed the believer as “justified” and thus having the hope of eternal life. Knight stated the following about this passage.

δικαιόω. . . became virtually a technical term in Paul’s writings, especially in Romans (15x) and Galatians (8x). . . . Here [Titus 3:7] it has the usual Pauline sense that it has in Romans and Galatians and in 1 Cor. 6:11, which, we have seen in parallel to this passage. The aorist passive participle . . . indicates here a past action that “we” have been recipients of, that of being “justified,” i.e., declared righteous in God’s sight and forgiven of sins. It thus refers to a judgment made by God in which already, here and now, God has acquitted sinners and pronounced them righteous.[16]

Similarly to the other passages, Titus 3:7 reveals that Paul believed that justification is a benefit secured by God on behalf of the sinner who trusts in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

The reccurring theme in these passages is clear: Paul taught that when an individual receives Christ as Savior, God declares that person justified, and His declaration comes through no merit of that person nor through any future obedience the person might perform. Paul’s view of justification as a secured reality was the opposite of what was being promoted in Galatia, which he identified as a counterfeit gospel (Gal. 1:7). In 4:21 Paul described those who promoted that false teaching as those “who want to be under law.” Those who held such a view were not believers, regardless of any previous profession they had made; rather they were opponents of the true gospel.[17] In verses 21-22 Paul specifically challenged them by asking, “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.” Then in the following verses Paul gave an allegory in which he referred to Sarah and Hagar as foretelling the differences between the gospel and the Law. Paul employed this allegory to argue that the Law and the Abrahamic promise had different functions, and thus were unrelated with respect to their applications. Moreover, he argued that the Law was made inoperative by the arrival of the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. The critical point is that in Galatians Paul was not addressing believers who had rested in Christ, but rather those who were satisfied with trusting a heretical gospel.[18] Paul was addressing those who believed that justification was not achieved through trusting singularly in Christ’s death, but rather through Christ’s sacrifice plus circumcision and obedience to the Law.[19]

When Paul heard the absurdity of such a position, he realized two distinct possibilities existed in Galatia. The first was that some in Galatia did not truly understand the gospel, and their consideration of circumcision indicated an absence of true faith. Such a conclusion meant that in Galatia there were some who did not experience saving faith. Paul later declared in Romans 5:1 that the experience of saving faith produces a state of rest for the believer with respect to any efforts of achieving justification: “Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”[20] Instead they were now seeking to follow a different process for obtaining justification, which Paul characterized as living “under Law.” Such a search on their part contradicted any previous profession they had made about Christ. A second possibility was that new Gentile seekers at Galatia were in jeopardy of accepting this false gospel and the slavery to the Law to which it would inevitably lead.[21]

An Exegesis Of Galatians 5:2-4

Having discussed the greater context of Galatians 5:2-4, an exegesis of the target passage is now appropriate.

Verse 2 begins a new paragraph in which Paul dramatically appealed to his readers.[22] He began by declaring ῎Ιδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμιν (“Behold I, Paul, say to you”). Several times in his epistles Paul appealed to his readers on the basis of who he was, but unlike some of his other appeals this one was based on his authority as an apostle.[23] Concerning this appeal Morris wrote, “He leaves the Galatians in no doubt but that what follows is important.”[24] The immediate question is whether Paul was addressing believers or someone else. As verse 3 makes obvious, he was not addressing Jews or the Judaizers, since Jewish men were circumcised at birth. More importantly, if Paul was in fact addressing Gentile believers, then his following statements severely undermine the doctrine of eternal security.[25] For now this question must remain unanswered until further exegesis of the target passage is completed.

Next Paul wrote ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμηνσθε Χριστὸς ὑμας οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει (“that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you”). This sentence shows that Paul was addressing those who viewed circumcision as necessary for receiving justification.[26] The fact that the verb περιτέμνησθε is in the subjunctive mood indicates that this was a possible decision on their part rather than a current reality, which means that they had not yet been circumcised. However, a possible alternative interpretation of the present subjunctive is “if you continue to receive circumcision.”[27] This interpretation implies that the Galatian church had already begun to recognize the necessity of Gentile circumcision.

Burton, although describing this translation as “unobjectionable,” rejected it, since the act of circumcision cannot be described as a “habit.”[28] Burton argued therefore that Paul was not addressing any process for justification being recognized by the Galatian church. However, the fact that Paul employed a second-person plural pronoun in his opening appeal and that the verb περιτέμνησθε is also in the second-person plural shows that he was addressing a subgroup within a larger community, rather than a single individual. Therefore interpreting the present subjunctive as a continuous activity remains a possibility.

This clause is the first part of a conditional sentence, with the presence of ἐὰν and the subjunctive in the protasis, while the verb in the apodosis is in the future. This is a classic “if . . . then” statement. However, in this case Paul was describing a future certainty with respect to a possible activity. This clause indicates that there were some Gentile men at Galatia who had not succumbed completely to the demands of the Judaizers.[29] The New International Version translates οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει as “will be of no value,” while the New American Standard Version translates this phrase as “will be of no benefit.” Both are legitimate translations. Translating in this manner, however, implies that Paul was thinking about the eschatological benefits found in Christ, rather than how Christ relates to a person before the final judgment. The difference is important. Was Paul simply arguing that Christ will ultimately not benefit any person who receives circumcision, or was he also arguing that Christ will also not assist a person in the present age if he seeks to be justified through circumcision?[30] Translating this verb in the manner of the New International Version and the New American Standard unnecessarily constrains Paul’s meaning to the benefits received in Christ at the eschaton.[31] There is nothing in the passage, however, that implies that Paul was thinking only of those benefits.[32] Translating ὠφελήσει as “will be of no help” is the preferred translation.[33]

Therefore Paul was addressing Gentile men who were considering circumcision as a necessary means of achieving justification. And he was also indirectly addressing Gentile women and Jews who also believed that some form of obedience to the Law was necessary for achieving justification.[34]

Paul wrote in Galatians 5:3 μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν (“And I testify again”). This is the second time in two verses that Paul made an impassioned appeal. Cole aptly likened this second appeal to that of “a formal declaration under oath in a court of law.”[35] Clearly Paul was seeking to impress his audience with the importance of his following declaration.

Paul then made a universal decree, stating “to every man who receives circumcision, he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” The apostle momentarily turned from his target audience and issued a universal declaration to Gentile men everywhere. The participle περιτεμνομένῳ is in the present tense and refers to those who were considering the need to be circumcised. Paul argued that if they submitted to circumcision in an attempt to receive justification, then they could not rest in that rite alone. Instead they must obey the entire Mosaic code.[36] One could not pick and choose which part of the Law to obey. With respect to the Law obedience was an all-or-nothing proposition.[37]

Turning back to his target audience, Paul next stated in verse 5, κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ (“you have been alienated from Christ,” NIV).[38] The New American Standard Version translates the verb κατηργήθητε “severed,” while the King James Version translates it “is become of no effect.” Both translations are possible, but neither one is the best translation of the verb. The New American Standard Version translation demands a previous connection with Christ, while the King James Version is unusually clumsy.

The context speaks of one’s relationship or lack thereof to an individual, rather than the amputation of an appendage from a body. The New International Version translation is best, since it implies a relationship to Christ without mandating any union with Him.[39] Both the New International Version and the New American Standard Version accurately translate the verb in the passive, meaning that this was something that had been done to the addresses rather than something that they had done for themselves. In the next clause Paul finally identified those he had been addressing since verse 2.

Paul’s target audience was οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, literally, “you who are being justified by the Law.”[40] The pronoun οἵτινες is in the nominative plural and is the subject of both verse 4 and the entire target passage (vv. 2-4).[41] The New International Version adeptly places this clause at the beginning of verse 4, thus clearly identifying it as the subject of the entire verse. The verb δικαιοῦσθε is in the present indicative and not the subjunctive, meaning that at the time of Paul’s writing these individuals believed that conformity to the Law was necessary for achieving justification.[42] Paul therefore was not addressing individuals who were considering changing their theological position in the future. Instead Paul identified them as already actively trusting in the Law rather than resting in Christ. The verb is in the passive because these individuals viewed their justification as secured by the Law rather than by Christ. Their position that Law observance was necessary for justification means that they viewed grace offered through Christ as insufficient.[43]

These individuals are the same ones Paul addressed in 4:21, whom he described as those who were desiring to be “under law.” They were basing their justification not only in Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, but also in their conformity to the Law. They were not trusting Him alone; so their profession was inappropriate and thus ineffectual. Their continued search for justification proves that they had not rested in the justification offered by God through Jesus Christ. Additionally their view that circumcision is necessary for justification also means that they were Gentile men. Nevertheless, whether they were Gentile men, Gentile women, or Jews who agreed with their position, they were all opponents of the gospel.[44]

This clause further explains why κατηργήθητε should be translated “alienated” and ὠφελήσει is better translated “will not help.” The search for additional justification on the part of these “Law-lovers” reveals that they never truly trusted in Christ; so Christ had existentially withdrawn from them. Burton made the insightful observation that Paul’s employment of κατηργήθητε in the aorist means that their alienation from Christ was a statement of fact, not a future possibility. This means that Christ had already withdrawn from them even though they had not yet received circumcision.[45] Instead of drawing closer to Jesus, their behavior actually repulsed Him. Those who seek justification through their own efforts, whether viewing themselves as Christian or not, will never receive the peace that Jesus gives to all who truly trust completely in Him.

Paul concluded his repudiation of these individuals in verse 4 with the clause τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε (“you have drifted from grace”).[46] The New American Standard Version translates the verb ἐξεπέσατε “fallen,” and the New International Version translates it “fallen away.” This verb is also in the aorist, which again does not mean that these Law-lovers may potentially drift away from grace, but rather that they were already living outside the sphere of grace. Paul’s point was that anyone who attempts to receive justification by the Law operates completely outside the sphere of Christ’s saving power. Translating this verb “to fall” is acceptable, although again it implies a previous relationship with grace that was not actually present. This verb is translated “to fall” when referring to things that were formally attached, such as flower petals or chains on one’s wrists.[47] However, Paul was not describing individuals who had been connected to Christ through God’s grace. Consequently “to fall” is not the best translation in this context.

This verb has another nuance that fits this particular context quite well. It is used to describe ships that have drifted off course.[48] The clause should therefore be translated as “you have drifted away from grace.” This translation fits the context nicely, since just as ships seek safe harbor so too these Law-lovers were seeking God’s favor. Ironically, however, they completely misunderstood the beauty of God’s grace. God’s offer demands that one come to grips with the fact that no human effort, regardless of how well intended or intrinsically good it may be, appeases His demand for holiness. That demand is satisfied only when one singularly trusts in Jesus’ sacrifice. These Gentiles had incorrectly believed that their obedience to the Law strengthened their claim to grace. Regrettably their search threw them off course and repulsed the one who offers true grace. In reality their search tragically alienated the very one they desired to please and led them away from what they desperately sought.[49]

This interpretation of Galatians 5:2-4 is strengthened by Paul’s use of the pronoun “we” in verse 5, clearly distinguishing him and all like-minded believers from those who believed that adherence to the Law was a necessary requirement for maintaining justification.[50] Paul considered those he addressed in 5:2-4 as “false brethren” (cf. 2:4), whereas those who possessed faith in Jesus Christ were joined with him in a family who “through the Spirit” were “waiting for the hope of righteousness,” that is, final salvation (5:5).

Applications From Galatians 5:2-4

A proposed translation of Galatians 5:2-4, therefore, would be as follows: “Behold, I, Paul, tell you all that if you let yourselves be circumcised, then Christ will not help you. Again I declare to every man being circumcised that he is under obligation to obey the whole Law. You who are being justified by the Law—you are alienated from Christ, you have drifted from grace.” Paul directed these words to Gentile men who had already sided with the Judaizers and were seeking justification by the Law. They had not actually rested in Christ as Paul and Gentile believers had done (5:5). Instead they were devoted to a counterfeit gospel, and thus had become opponents of the true gospel. Consequently Paul referred to them as “false brethren” (2:4). These Gentile Law-lovers had probably made some profession concerning Christ; nevertheless Paul knew that they were not believers, for true believers do not continue to seek additional justification after receiving Christ. Just as people standing on shore do not seek rescue from drowning, so too those who have been redeemed by Jesus do not seek additional justification.

Application of this passage is obvious. Evangelism must be carried out in symphony with sound doctrine, for correctly understanding the gospel determines whether one actually receives the grace it offers, and with it the justification that it secures. Evangelism divorced from orthodoxy is disingenuous at best. If the gospel and its implications are not clearly proclaimed, then audiences will not properly understand it, and as a result many will make inappropriate and/or ineffectual professions concerning Christ. No doubt Paul believed he had adequately explained the gospel to the Galatians, but he had probably not accounted for the arrival of false brethren in the form of Judaizers.

The gospel and its implications therefore must be clearly explained.

When people hear the gospel, they must know that salvation is received only through faith in Jesus and His death on the cross, and that it is not secured or maintained through any additional human effort. The idea that human effort is necessary in order for one to maintain one’s own justification offends God. One must rest solely on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing that one can offer in addition to Jesus’ sacrifice provides greater access or privilege to the grace of God. As Paul explained in 2:21, “for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” What is true about works of the Law is also true about all deeds of human goodness and charity. Christians perform such deeds because God has saved them, not in order to maintain or achieve their justification before God. They are, however, vindicated through such works as people whom God has saved (James 2:18-26).[51] Moreover, it is precisely for those very works that God graciously saves all He redeems through Christ (Eph. 2:8-10). God does not save fallen sinners and then expect those same flawed people to sustain their own justification that He has graciously secured for them. Grace is not a restart button that one presses in order to get a fresh start at justification (3:1-5). The justification found in Christ needs no “add-ons.” It is complete and in its sufficiency believers find peace with God and by it believers rest in that peace.[52]

Notes

1. This article assumes that Galatians was written early in Paul’s missionary career and that it was written between three and twelve months after his last visit to the churches in Galatia, around AD 47-48. For a discussion of Paul’s missionary career and the dating of Galatians see D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 359-70, 458-65. See also Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (Dallas: Word, 1990), lxi–lxxxviii. For the sake of discussion this article occasionally describes its subject as if Paul addressed a single congregation. However, Galatians 1:2 shows that Paul intended this letter to circulate among the churches throughout Galatia.
2. For a detailed discussion of Paul’s opponents see Longenecker, Galatians, lxxxix–c. Longenecker cited Betz in support of the position that Paul never addressed his opponents in Galatians. Betz, however, did not state that Paul did not directly address his opponents in Galatians, but that he never named them in the epistle. Also Betz was discussing Galatians 5:10 when he made that statement, not verse 4 (Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 267-68).
3. Those who approach this passage in this way include Lewis Sperry Chafer, “The Eternal Security of the Believer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (October–December 1949): 417-18; Kenneth S. Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 1:137-41; and Gordon Fee, Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary (Dorst, UK: Deo, 2007), 186. The term “believer” is used to identify those who have trusted in Christ for their salvation. It is not applied to those who merely made a “profession” about Christ while having a faulty understanding of the gospel; nor is it applied to those who thought of themselves as “Christians” but held to heretical doctrines concerning Christ and the gospel.
4. Arguing for the Northern Galatian theory, J. Louis Martyn stated that “there were no Jewish Christians in Paul’s Galatian Churches” (Galatians [New York: Doubleday, 1998], 16). Martyn’s position, however, raises more questions than it answers. For example why would Jews travel into North Galatia to seek to convert Gentiles to Judaism when there were few synagogues (if any at all) to support them? And how did they even know that Paul had led Gentiles to Christ in Northern Galatia? A strength of the South Galatian theory is that it is more reasonable to argue for the presence of Judaizers in cities where Jewish synagogues and populations existed.
5. For a more comprehensive discussion of “the Galatian Problem” see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 19-32.
6. Some suggest that Paul believed a decision in favor of the Judaizers had not yet occurred (e.g., Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Church of Galatia [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 187). However, Galatians 1:6 suggests that Paul felt such a decision was actively in process.
7. James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 427.
8. Timothy George, Galatians (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 357, 359; Gordon D. Fee, “Freedom and the Life of Obedience (Galatians 5:1-6:18),” Review and Expositor 91 (1994): 201; and Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: Clark, 1948), 274. Burton argued that 4:10 implies that the Judaizers had already convinced some Gentiles of the need to observe Jewish festivals.
9. Longenecker, Galatians, xcvii.
10. Karen Engle Layman, “Galatians 5:1-15,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 248.
11. Boice, Galatians, 427. Burton also referred to the demand of the Judaizers as the “principle of legalism” (Galatians, 272).
12. Fee and many others have referred to Judaizers as “Jewish Christians” (“Freedom and the Life,” 201). Ronald Fung correctly labeled Paul’s opponents as “Galatian heretics” (The Epistle to the Galatians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 222).
13. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 958-59.
14. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 263 (italics added).
15. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 247 (italics added).
16. George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 346 (italics added).
17. George described these Gentiles as taking the first step toward apostasy (Galatians, 357). Longenecker rejected the position that Paul was addressing his opponents in 4:21 (Galatians, 206). But Longenecker failed to appreciate Paul’s call to the believing “brothers” to excommunicate those “Law-lovers” from their churches (vv. 29-30). Individuals who make insincere professions about Christ may become apostate.
18. Boice argued that in 4:21 Paul addressed individuals who were considering rejecting the cross for the Law (Galatians, 482-83). However, Paul did not employ a subjunctive verb, which would point to the potential of making a future decision, but the present active verb, which indicates they were already satisfied with being under the Law’s jurisdiction.
19. Longenecker adeptly explained how the Judaizers and their adherents could see no real conflict between their message and Paul’s (Galatians, xcv). See also Betz, Galatians, 261.
20. Ridderbos, Galatians, 189.
21. Fee, “Freedom and Life,” 202.
22. Fee argued that the paragraph containing the target passage begins at 5:1, stating that verse 1 is a “janus statement,” which is a “heading” that looks both to the preceding and forthcoming arguments (Galatians, 186). Bruce argued that a new paragraph starts with verse 2 (Bruce, Galatians, 228-29). Donald Guthrie noted that this appeal parallels that of 2 Corinthians 10:1, which also begins a new paragraph (Galatians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 128). Thus Paul began his decisive paragraph in Galatians 5:2, with verse 1 being the conclusion to his discussion begun in 4:21.
23. George, Galatians, 355, 358. Paul made a similar impassioned appeal in 1:9. For a discussion of the different ways Paul made appeals based on his identity see Burton, Galatians, 272-73. Fee argued that Paul’s appeal was only an “indirect” appeal to his authority as an apostle (Galatians, 187).
24. Leon Morris, Galatians: Paul’s Charter of Christian Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 154.
25. Fee, on the other hand, stated that Paul was not making statements of “theological precision” but rather was only speaking rhetorically; thus he was not speaking about “eternal salvation” (Galatians, 189). Fee apparently changed his position about this passage from his previous article, in which he argued that in verses 2-4 Paul addressed those who had “abandoned Christ” and thus did “not have the eschatological hope” (“Freedom and Life,” 203). Similarly George contended that Paul did not “contemplate the forfeiture of salvation,” but was calling the Galatian churches to “sound” doctrine (Galatians, 360). Either position fails to appreciate the fact that Paul was speaking directly to individuals in the Galatian churches.
26. Guthrie observed that this is the first time in the epistle that Paul mentioned the rite of circumcision in connection with obedience to the Law in relation to justification (Galatians, 128; see also George, Galatians, 356). This one issue, however, was the impetus for the entire letter.
27. For an explanation of the subjunctive and the legitimacy of interpreting the present subjunctive as a continuous activity see William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 288-98.
28. Burton, Galatians, 273.
29. Guthrie, Galatians, 128.
30. Longenecker, Galatians, 226. See also R. Alan Cole, The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 190.
31. Contra Betz, Galatians, 259; and George, Galatians, 357. Betz and George based their position on Paul’s use of the future tense. The future tense, however, still does not demand that Paul had in view only the eschatological benefits found in Christ.
32. Burton, Galatians, 273.
33. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 1107.
34. For a discussion of Paul’s view of Jewish circumcision see Cole, Galatians, 188-89. Ridderbos observed that Paul was opposed to circumcision only when soteriological implications were attached to the rite (Galatians, 188).
35. Cole, Galatians, 188.
36. Morris, Galatians, 155.
37. Fee, Galatians, 188. See also Fung, Galatians, 224. Morris contended that the Judaizers had originally withheld the requirement of total conformity to the Law from the Gentiles in the churches of Galatia (Galatians, 155).
38. Another possible translation other than “alienated” is “estranged.” Bruce noted that Paul used the same verb in a similar context in Romans 7:6, which the New International Version translates “we have been released” (Bruce, Galatians, 231).
39. George seemed content with both “alienated” and “severed” as sufficient translations of κατηργήθητε (Galatians, 359). His position fails to consider that “severed” mandates having been attached to Christ, whereas “alienated” does not. See also Cole, Galatians, 191. Paul used the same word in Galatians 3:17, which the New International Version translated “do away with.”
40. Author’s translation. The verb δικαιοῦσθε is a present passive indicative and not a part of a participial construction.
41. Fee, Galatians, 188. So also Fung, Galatians, 223.
42. James Dunn argued that Paul’s use of the present tense should be interpreted as an “attempted but incomplete action” (The Epistle to the Galatians [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002], 267). Dunn stated that this use of the present tense was “common.” Daniel B. Wallace calls this use of the present tense a “conative,” which, he stated, is “rare.” Wallace actually used Galatians 5:4 as an example of a conative present tense (Greek Grammarbeyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 534-35). See also Bruce, Galatians, 231. The fact that Paul viewed their search for justification as in process or incomplete is inconsequential because he viewed their disassociation with Christ as real and factual. Paul’s use of the present tense argues that these specific Galatians actively believed that their justification was achieved or maintained through their obedience to the Law, which was something Paul contended was doomed to failure. Failure was assured precisely because their search meant they were already alienated from Christ and were operating outside the sphere of God’s grace.
43. Betz, Galatians, 261.
44. Morris argued that Paul addressed his opponents only in verse 4 (Galatians, 156).
45. Burton, Galatians, 276. Fung discussed the possibility that ἐξεπέσατε and κατηργήθητε are proleptic aorists (Galatians, 223). Bruce suggests the same (Galatians, 231). Wallace stated that this type of aorist “is not common at all” (Greek Grammarbeyond the Basics, 563). More probably, these are simply punctiliar aorists, which simply stress the fact of an occurrence and not its nature. By their consideration of circumcision these Gentile men were already alienated from Christ and had drifted from grace. Guthrie observed that Paul described Christ’s alienation from these men as an “accomplished fact” (Galatians, 129). Guthrie contended, however, that Paul was speaking of the potential as “actual.” However, Paul was not arguing that their alienation from Christ and grace would occur if they received circumcision, but that they were already in fact alienated from Christ and that they had drifted from grace because they believed that justification was received through some form of Law observance (Longenecker, Galatians, 228).
46. Author’s translation.
47. Ridderbos, Galatians, 189; and Fung, Galatians, 223.
48. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 308. Dunn recognized the legitimacy of both “severed” and “drifted” as accurate translations of ἐκπίπτω, but he did not note their important differences (Galatians, 268).
49. Fee, Galatians, 189.
50. Morris, Galatians, 156. See also Fung, Galatians, 234. Cole disagreed, arguing that this “strong adversative” should not be interpreted as Paul saying “we Christians” (Galatians, 191).
51. Concerning the distinction between Paul’s concept of being declared righteous (i.e., justified) and James’s concept of being vindicated as righteous (i.e., justified), see Ben Witherington, The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical World of the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009), 1:312-18.
52. Fee, Galatians, 188.