Chapter 9 GALATIANS Because of its importance in the debate on the believer and the law, I am taking Galatians out of biblical order. The fact is, Paul's argument in this letter, coming so early in the New Testament age, is crucial. It is the benchmark for the doctrine of the law. Before we start, however, just a word or two on the law, as used by the Apostle in this short letter. It is sometimes claimed that Paul started with one meaning, then switched, without any explanation or hint of it, to a new meaning for a few paragraphs, and then switched back again. Or else, as I will show, Reformed writers frequently add one or other of their usual glosses. This, of course, proves useful in their efforts to fit certain Galatian passages into their system, passages which they would otherwise find worse than awkward. The fact is, however, throughout Galatians, 32 times, with only three obvious exceptions, when Paul used the law, he meant the law, the entire law, the law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments, as at least some Reformed writers recognize. Let us proceed on this basis, and let us stick to it. Let us allow Paul to tell us what he meant. Why did Paul write the letter? Paul, having established his apostolic credentials, spoke of the grace of Christ, the gospel of Christ, The Gospel, Galatians 1, 1-17. He then referred to a painful experience through which he had passed. Judaizers, false brethren, came in by stealth to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. Galatians 2, 4-5. Paul met the attack more than once, at Antioch, Acts 15, and Jerusalem, Acts 15 again, and in various other churches. Precisely where Galatians 2 fits in the chronology is open to debate, but this is of no relevance to the present issue. These false teachers, it is to be noted, came into the church and came in with the intention of spying out our liberty. Our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. I emphasize this. The false teachers were not going out into the world trying to persuade unbelievers to seek salvation by the law. Far from it. This very important point must not be forgotten when we tackle Paul's arguments later on. The agitators had infiltrated the ranks of believers to attack one of the most treasured possessions of believers. Nor had their onslaught been confined on a limited scale, not forgetting the letter to the Hebrews, The problem was raising its head in nearly all the churches, at Antioch, in Galatia, at Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, among converted Jews and Gentiles. The false teachers were not only talking about the way to be saved, but the implications of being saved. Spiritual liberty was at stake. It was our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, which was under attack. Of course, there were implications for unbelievers, but the agitators did not have the unconverted principally in their sights. The infiltrators wanted to bring believers into bondage, Galatians 2.4, robbing them of their liberty in Christ. Observe further how they went about their task. They were smuggled in, sneaked in, slipped in, intending to spy out or inspect, view closely, in order to plot against believers, especially, as I've said, against one of the most treasured privileges believers have. Note how the apostles stress the point, saying these false brethren were secretly brought in, who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty. In addition to the false and spy out, do not miss his double use of the same Greek word. Compare Jude 4. It was not an open appeal to unbelievers which concerned Paul. He was alarmed by the Judaizers secret attack on believers by their subtle efforts to take them under the law. I will not repeat what I said about these Judaizers in the introduction, but there are three things which must be remembered as we launch out into Galatians. Evidence for them will come up time and time again. First, do not forget the covenant theology behind their demands. They argued that the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants were one and the same. Secondly, the question must not be limited to circumcision. It was the entire law, Galatians 5.3. To point out the obvious, circumcision, the principal point of the attack, was not part of the Ten Commandments, nor was it, strictly speaking, part of the Mosaic law, see John 7.22. This illustrates the point I have already made. It's quite wrong to limit the law to the Ten Commandments. And thirdly, although the question concerning the law may have had a bearing on addresses to unbelievers, it was its effect on believers which was the real concern here, as it is mine. Why was Paul telling the Galatians about this? Why was he rehearsing his own experience at the hands of the Judaizers? Because the Galatians too were being attacked in precisely the same way. Indeed, said Paul, the attack has been successful to a certain extent. in that you were turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel. You are listening to and giving yourselves to the doctrine of those who pervert the gospel of Christ. Galatians 1, 6-7. In other words, the Galatians were giving up their liberty in Christ and going back into bondage. Hence Paul's letter. By spelling out his own experience of the Judaizers, Paul was able to lay down, right at the start, the great marker for the letter. Namely, the believer's liberty in Christ Jesus. As we shall see, Paul did a similar thing when writing to several other churches. in God's providence, the Apostle's bitter experience have prepared him to be of immense service to other believers, both then and down the centuries. If I may accommodate his words to the Corinthians, blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who delivers us in all our spiritual battles, that we may be able to help those who are being attacked with the defense with which we ourselves are delivered by God. What is this liberty which believers enjoy and might so easily lose? It includes freedom from sin, freedom from its condemnation now, its power progressively, and its presence in glory. It includes freedom from death, spiritual now, physical in the resurrection, and eternal. But it also includes freedom from the law, and it was this particular freedom which was under attack by the Judaizers, who, if they had managed to get their way, would have brought Paul and his believing friends back into the bondage of subjection to the law. How had he reacted to those who attacked his liberty as a believer? We did not give in to them for a moment, he said. Galatians 2.5 And that was his settled conviction. The protection and cultivation of the believer's liberty, with its corollary, the shunning of bondage, is a major theme of Galatians. In short, Paul was rightly concerned, not only for himself and the immediate church context in which he found himself, but he was thinking of the Galatian believers, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Galatians 2.5 The fact is, by God's Spirit, he was defending the gospel, especially the liberty it brings. for all the saints of all ages. He was doing it for us. Freedom. Our freedom in Christ is the great word, the key word, the heart of Paul's message in Galatians. The New Testament makes much of this liberty to which the saints have been called and which Christ accomplished for his people. No wonder. is one of salvation's greatest glories. Liberty in Christ is a joyful, triumphant fact, true for all believers without exception. Believers are free. Since sin is at the root of all bondage, freedom means freedom from sin. Inevitably, therefore, by freedom, the Apostle meant freedom from the law. since the strength of sin is the law. 1 Corinthians 15 verse 56. Paul never tired of the theme. Freedom from the law, that yoke of bondage or slavery, freedom from what the Jerusalem meeting called the law of Moses, a yoke on the neck, the law, Acts 15. Of course, the believer's freedom extends much wider than freedom from the law, but it certainly includes it. The believer is not under the law. Let the Apostle spell it out. In addition to the law, The believer has freedom from slavery, to those which by nature are not gods, bondage under the elements of the world, weak and beggarly elements, the observation of days and months, and seasons and years, Galatians 4. Freedom from philosophy, an empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Freedom from the basic principles of the world, regulations such as do not touch, do not taste, do not handle, the commandments and doctrines of men, Colossians 2. Freedom from being slaves of sin, Romans 6. Freedom from serving, being enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. Titus 3. Freedom is Paul's theme and is always connected with the spirit and not with the law. Without doubt it is freedom from the law which constitutes a principal part of the believer's liberty. Now the Lord is the spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3 verse 17. The significance of which lies in the context, namely, the passing away of the old covenant, the law, and the sharp contrast between that and the new covenant in Christ, all of which Paul so emphatically stresses in 2 Corinthians 3. and liberty is the core, the essence of the letter to the Galatians. Having sketched in the background of the letter, now let us look at the particular paragraphs which are most relevant for understanding the relationship between the believer and the law. I begin with that attack upon the believer's liberty. Galatians 2, 4-5 forced brethren, secretly brought in, who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we did not yield submission, even for an hour, for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. some very important issues are raised in this account of the Apostle's experience. But I will leave a full examination of them until they surface in his major doctrinal statements later in the letter. After all, these verses are simply a statement of what happened to Paul, the doctrinal and practical implications of which he will later work out in close detail. is as we meet such passages that we will get to grips with his teaching. For now, I simply flag up some of these important topics. As I've already said, the believer's liberty includes at least freedom from the law. And it was this freedom which was under attack by the Judaizers. But what primarily was the focus of that attack? What law was it that the agitators were seeking to bring believers under? And consequently, what was the freedom which Paul stressed so vehemently? Some argue that Paul was defending the believers' freedom from the curse of the law, or freedom from trying to earn justification by the law, or freedom from the ceremonial observances of the law. Is this right? Or is it wider? Much wider. I will not spell out all my reasons here, leaving them until I reach the major passages on the subject. But these suggestions fall woefully short of the facts. Why? Take the first. Freedom from the curse of the law. Does anybody think the infiltrators wanted to bring the Galatians under the curse of the law? what believer would have allowed himself to be bought into that? dear friends you must come under the law's curse is that so? put my name down the suggestion is ludicrous take the second suggestion freedom from trying to earn justification by the law Though of course believers can get into trouble by thinking in terms of the law for justification, indeed Paul will tackle this very point in chapter 5. Is it their only danger? In this area, is it their greatest danger? Certainly not. The truth is believers are not seeking to be justified in the first place. They are justified. It's accomplished. But they are seeking to be sanctified. and herein lies the great threat to their liberty. As for the third suggestion, that the law in question might be the ceremonial law, notice how Paul, in order to escape from the Judaizers' clutches, did not take the Reformed route of the tripart division of the law. Neither the infiltrators nor Paul thought or talked in such a way about the law. So the third suggestion is out of the question. As I showed in chapter 7, scripture simply does not allow such glosses to be imposed upon the law. No, the attack was over the law. True, while circumcision was probably uppermost in the false teachers' minds, as I have already pointed out, And as Paul would later explain, every man who becomes circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law. Galatians 5 verse 3. The law is the whole law. There can be no picking and choosing. It is the relationship between the believer and the law, the whole law, which Paul was dealing with. In particular, Paul was defending, asserting the believer's freedom from the law, the whole law. What happened to Titus at Jerusalem, Galatians 2, 1-5 illustrates the point. Because he was a Gentile, the Judaizers wanted him circumcised. Paul refused. He realized it was not a matter of circumcision only, in itself, the key point for the Judaizers, but the whole law, Galatians 5. The believer is free from the right of circumcision because he's free from the law. If Paul had given ground when the infiltrators demanded Titus' circumcision, it would have placed in jeopardy this larger, this vital principle. As a consequence, the apostle would not budge an inch. He knew that obedience to the law meant obedience to the entire law. 90% obedience to the Ten Commandments is no obedience at all, James 2. To concede obedience on the one point of the entire law, therefore, was to concede obedience to all. In short, the law is the entire law, and what the Apostle says about justification and the law, he says about sanctification and the law. These are such important points Let me show how Paul went on almost immediately to make them in another way. Galatians 2 15-21 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain, that is, for nothing. I have said, the law, throughout Galatians 2, means the law, the whole law. It does not mean the ceremonial law, as opposed to the moral law. Let me prove it. As always, the context is king. The mistake in trying to impose the gloss of the ceremonial law on the freedom of Galatians 2.4 can be seen at a glance. The same goes for this passage. In the extract just taken from Galatians 2.15-21 try replacing the law with the ceremonial law as distinct from the moral law. Is it right to say that no man is justified by the works of the ceremonial law, and so leave the way open for the suggestion that he is justified by the works of the moral law. Of course not. Is it bondage to seek justification by the ceremonial law, but freedom to seek it by the moral law? Again, did Paul, through the ceremonial law, die to the ceremonial law, that he might live to God? Of course not. Believers are justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. And through the law they have died to the law, that they might live to God. Righteousness does not come by the law. No glosses, no qualifications, no quibbles. Paul was not speaking of social markers for the Jews he was not speaking of the so-called ceremonial law in contradistinction to the so-called moral law he said the law and he meant the law the whole law and nothing but the law the fact is the law in Galatians 2 15 to 21 is general any law but especially the Mosaic law the Old Testament law the law of God the entire law, and since this is the way Paul was using the law in Galatians 2, we must keep to it when thinking about the attack spoken of in Galatians 2.4. Galatians 2.15-21 constitutes part of Paul's rebuttal of the principles of the false teachers. The attack on liberty spoken of in the earlier part of chapter 2 therefore was to do with the same law as in the final part of chapter 2 the law in Galatians 2 means the law now for the second point namely that what Paul says about the law and justification he says about the law and sanctification In this passage, not only was Paul not limiting the law to the so-called ceremonial law, neither was he limiting the believer's liberty to justification. When speaking about the wide-sweeping and all-embracing liberty believers have in Christ, he was speaking of freedom from the law, both for justification and sanctification. And the believer since he has liberty, must not go back to bondage by allowing himself to be put under the law, and doing so for whatever reason. Let me prove it. Notice how Paul, in dealing with the foolish Galatians, wisely started at the beginning. That is, by reminding them of the way of his and their justification, which is by grace, through faith, not by the works of the law. Not only did Paul remind the Galatians of this, but it would be more accurate to say he stressed it, and stressed it both by his use of the negative and by repetition. It is not by the works of the law, not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Galatians 2.16. But there's more to it. This was, I repeat, only the beginning. As he was setting out the truth concerning justification, Paul took the question of the law further. When he said, I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God, verse 19, he was moving from justification into sanctification, that I might live to God. Living to God is without question speaking of the sanctified life of a believer. What is more, the apostle categorically stated that he died to the law that in order that I might live to God. I cannot overstate the importance of this assertion. Paul died to the law in order that he might live to God. In other words, he was asserting that the law neither justifies nor sanctifies. that the believer is not under the law, either for justification or sanctification. The truth is, as I say, he was making the point that to live to God, a sinner must die to the law. In short, the law is part of the problem, not the solution. I'm not saying a word against the law. The fault lies with the sinner, not the law. but the believer has to be dead to the law in order to live to God. This vital point will come up time and again, as it ought. As we shall see, the apostle later made the same point in Romans 7.4. And since this was true for Paul, as a Jewish believer, one who before his conversion was under the law since he had died to the law, indeed had to die to the law, in order to live for God, why ever would Gentile believers think of going under the law? May I reiterate the point I have just made? It is vital. The law is a part of the believer's problem, not the solution. The sinner has to die to the law in order to live to God. in Christ, the believer has died to the law, so that he might bring forth fruit to God. The main thrust of Galatians 2, 11-21, I agree is justification, but more than that is involved. Practical godliness, daily living, living to God, sanctification, is also bound up in the bundle. As Paul demanded of Peter, if you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles, and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law. I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I've been crucified with Christ. It's no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God. If righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. Here we have justification and sanctification, cheek by jowl. live in the manner of live as i might live i who live the life which i now live in the flesh i live by faith sanctification is linked with justification justified justified by faith in christ and both are not by the works of the law not by the works of the law thus it is clear As far as justification is concerned, the law has nothing to do with the believer. But this is not all. Freedom from the law does not stop at justification. It goes on to sanctification and includes it. Freedom from the law is essential if the believer is to live a godly life. Essential? Yes, indeed. Remember the in order that. which is so clearly stated in the passage, I died to the law that, in order that, I might live to God. The law produces pride, bondage, mere external conformity to rules and so on. It is no friend of sanctification. To go to the law, after coming to Christ, would be a dreadful, retrograde move. It would display a woeful misunderstanding of the grace of God In truth, it would make void the grace of God. Such a step ought to be out of the question. It would be the exact opposite of Paul's argument. Peter was in danger of doing it, and so were the Galatians. And Paul dealt with them both. That is why he spoke so bluntly and openly to Peter, and wrote the letter to the Galatians. Praise God he had the courage, the wisdom and the grace to do it. Death to the law is essential for living unto God. And as before, it will not do to say that Paul was talking about the ceremonial law. He was talking about the law. About the law, I say. Just as a dead man cannot return to his old way of life, neither can a believer go under the law. Just as a widow cannot live and submit to her dead husband, Romans 7, 1-6, neither can a believer live under the rule of the law. In Galatians 2, 15-21, Paul of course is leading up to Galatians 3, 1. See also Galatians 4, 4-5. To go back to the law would be to build again those things which Paul, in setting out the gospel, destroyed. making himself a transgressor Galatians 2 18 a lawbreaker weighty arguments here against all who advocate putting believers under the law for sanctification this will sound startling to many and so it is but it's what Paul was saying and kept on saying above all it must not be forgotten Rather, it must be stressed. In Galatians, Paul is arguing with believers not about how they became believers, but how they, as believers, go on in Christ. Sadly, many try to limit Galatians to the law and justification. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believers have not become Christians by the law. They do not remain Christians by the law. They do not grow and make progress by the law. Above all, and this is the point of Galatians, they are not sanctified by the law. Indeed, it's only because they have died to the law that believers can be sanctified. To be sanctified, a man must die to the law. No reformed semantics must be allowed to dull the force of this. And it means that Calvin's third use of the law cannot possibly be right. This in turn raises other unimportant issues, such as, does the law still have a place in the age of the gospel? Is faith in Christ enough? Or should obedience to the law be added to faith in Christ? What is the role, if any, of the law in the life of a believer? How can a believer be sanctified? I will return to these questions. But not only I. I will return to them because they are the very issues Paul himself raises and deals with. This in itself shows that we are on the right track, walking in step with the Apostle. So let us calmly proceed, keeping a firm grip on what we have been taught thus far. The law does not justify the sinner. The law does not sanctify the believer. What does Paul say next? Galatians 3 1-5 O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law? or by the hearing of faith? Or are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Paul, having raised the question of sanctification, wanted to get the Galatians to think more deeply about it, and especially its connection with the law. He did this by the device of a linguistic explosion, closely followed by a series of rapid-fire bullets in the form of sharp questions, six in all. Consider the fourth of these. Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Paul reminded his readers that they had not only begun in the Spirit, But they actually received the Spirit, not by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith. Begun what? Begun their Christian experience. That is, they have been regenerated, they have been justified by grace through faith in Christ by the work of the Spirit, and not by the works of the law. So far, so good. all Reformed and Evangelical people will agree, except as so often their usual qualifications and glosses appear. Paul was not asking, for instance, if the Galatians had received the Spirit by rigorous bondage to the ceremonial law. He was referring to obedience to the Mosaic law in its entirety. Did the law bring you the Spirit? the law, I stress. But the point of Paul's question was not justification. It was sanctification. Having begun in the spirit, he asked, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? When Paul spoke of now being made perfect, fully accomplished, fully complete, he was speaking about sanctification, was he not? this is the force of his use of now being when he moved on from their initial experience to ask the Galatians having been justified are you now being made perfect by the flesh? this is of such importance I must say it again when the apostle asked are you now being made perfect what was he talking about? justification? There's no being made about justification. It is instantaneous. No, the now being made perfect clearly refers to progressive sanctification. Justification, a once for all act of God, precedes and inevitably leads to sanctification, a lifelong process. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now he has reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in his sight. That is justification. If indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel, that is, sanctification. Colossians 1 21-23 The link between the two is unbreakable. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2, 8 to 10. The way to glory is through holiness. And that is what Paul is concerned about in this letter to the Galatians, especially the way to produce holiness. And that is not by the law. This means, of course, that it is a very serious mistake to suggest that Paul's great concern in this letter is justification, though, as I have observed, it is commonly believed and said, no, the apostle was speaking to believers who were therefore already justified about advancing in Christian experience. not entering it. He was speaking not only of the basis of faith, but progress in it, not the ground of salvation, but the way to grow in it. Paul's use of the present continuous tense, now being made perfect, must not be overlooked. He was speaking of the process and progress of sanctification. More precisely, It was not the ground or standard of the believer's sanctification which concerned him. Rather, it was the way the believer is to be sanctified. The Reformed want to concentrate on the what of sanctification. The real question is the how. What is more, of even greater importance, is the who will be sanctified and why. And this is the very issue I am addressing in this book. So how, according to Paul, are believers sanctified? How does he argue his case? He presses his case by asking these bullet-like questions, not issuing a series of bland statements. As always, he's making his readers think. Building on their experience of justification, Paul calls on the Galatians to think, and to think clearly about how they were justified, and now how they are being sanctified. Having begun, that is justification in the spirit, demands Paul, are you now being made perfect, that is sanctification, by the flesh? And when he dismisses the possibility of being made perfect by the flesh, is he referring to natural powers and abilities? Certainly. is denying any hope of sanctification by human effort. Yes, but Paul is saying far more than that. In the context, the expressions by the flesh and in the flesh are virtually one and the same with under the law and by the works of the law. A reading of Galatians 3, 2-3 will prove it. In addition, these verses show that to be living in the flesh, in the flesh, under the law, and by the works of the law, is diametrically opposed to living, walking in, or by the Spirit. So important is this point. Paul returns to it more than once and drives it home. Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are, but the fruit of the Spirit is. Against such there is no law, and those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in or by the Spirit. He who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. Galatians 5 and 6 see also Romans 8, 13 and Galatians 4 finally Paul's question in Galatians 3, 3 having begun in the spirit are you now being made perfect by the flesh is rhetorical there is no doubt about the answer the expected answer the obvious answer is a resounding no of course not Sanctification most decidedly is not by the flesh, is not by the works of the law, just as justification is not by the works of the law, but by the work of the Spirit. So it is with sanctification. In asking them about their experience of the Spirit, Paul's purpose is not to shine the spotlight on how the Galatians received the Spirit, but rather to get them to grasp the Spirit's role in their ongoing life as believers. They had started the Christian life without the works of the law, he reminds them. Well then, so they must go on, and go on to the end. There is no more place for the works of the law in the continuance of the believer's experience than there was at its start. In other words, the law could not justify it cannot sanctify. And just as the unbeliever should not go to the law for justification, neither should the believer go to the law for sanctification. Both should go to Christ. Christ is all. As Paul declared to the Corinthians, what I received I passed on to you as of first importance. What was that? Strictly speaking, it was not what, it was whom, Christ, His death, burial and resurrection, all according to the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15 In other words, the Scriptural Christ. Paul's point about sanctification is not secondary compared to the primary thrust of justification, as is claimed. In any case, even if it is, it doesn't alter the fact. Sanctification is not by the law. But secondary, this is not. From Paul's sixth rhetorical question, Therefore he who supplies the Spirit to you, and works miracles among you, Does he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? We can see that faith, not the works of the law, is the vital element in the ongoing Christian life. Galatians 3.3 demands detailed exposition since it strikes at the heart of the Reformed thesis. Unfortunately, it doesn't always get it. Indeed, it's sometimes made to say the opposite of what the apostle actually did say. Paul was not saying that the law is the way God gives his spirit to his people when they are justified. Far from it. The fact is, the law cannot justify, nor does it enable the believer to reach that standard of life which must accompany justification. In short, the law can neither justify nor sanctify. There are two dangers if we get the connection between justification and sanctification wrong. First, if we mistakenly put them into separate compartments, forgetting that sanctification can only come after and from the same source as justification, that is by the power of Christ, we should become legalists. trying to be holy by our own power, by obeying the law or man-made rules. The second danger occurs when justification and sanctification are treated as one and the same. This leads us to ignore our responsibility to obey God in his word, and thus to work out that which he has worked in us. let go and let God, or God does it all, is a tragic misunderstanding of the way to attain a godly life. The believer does not become holy by taking it by faith. He is under the law of Christ. See chapter 16. As we have seen, and will continue to see, and see even more clearly, the law is to do with sin. It has nothing to do with grace. Indeed, it stands in striking contrast to it. Many scriptures. The law cannot save. It cannot bring grace. While grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, the law brings about wrath. Of course it does. Since the carnal or fleshly mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be, so then those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8. So much for the natural man, the sinner outside of Christ. This is what being in the flesh means. This is Paul's way of speaking of those outside of Christ. They cannot, they do not, they will not submit to God's law. And they're in this state because they do not have the Spirit. so as Paul reminded the Galatians, and later the Romans. Justification is not by the flesh, not by the law, but by the hearing of faith, by the work of Christ, through the power of the Spirit. No sinner can be justified by the law. He hates it. He will not be subject to it, Romans 8, 7. The law arouses the sinful passions, Romans 7. It makes sin live, Romans 7, and kills the sinner, Romans 7 again. Justification can only be by grace through the Spirit. There is no middle way between the works of the law and the hearing of faith. It is one or the other, and justification is not by the law. So much for justification, but in Galatians 3, 2-3, I reiterate Paul was going further than this. How stupid, how wrong of you believers, he was saying, to imagine for a moment that having begun in the Spirit, you might now go to the flesh, that is to the law, to sanctify you. The law could not save you, nor can it sanctify you. This is what the apostle was teaching. As before, as with justification, So with growth in the Christian life, neither is by the works of the law. To conclude, the believer began his spiritual experience, he has been justified, in the Spirit, not by the law. And just as he began, so he continues by the Spirit, and not the law. In short, as with justification, so with sanctification. Both are by the Spirit, and not the law. This simple, though crucial point, if firmly grasped and fully worked out, would go a long way to sorting out the issue of the Belieber and the law. The law does not sanctify. The law cannot possibly be the Belieber's perfect rule of life. Poe's rhetorical questions have ruled it out once and for all. We now come to a section of massive importance in this discussion, one which goes right to its very heart. Gird up your loins. It's not too much to say that if we get this following section right, the rest of the debate over the believer and the law will largely fall into place. And while there's an abundance of detail in what now follows, do not, I urge you, get lost in it. Do not miss the big picture. Galatians 3 10 to 4 7 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse better a curse For it's written curse It is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them But then no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident For the just shall live by faith Yet the law is not a faith but the man who does them shall live by them. Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, and to seeds, as of many, but as of one. and to your seed, who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was 430 years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it's no longer a promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. What preface then? Does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made, and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not, for if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. the scriptures confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before the faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for, better that is, shut up to, confined for, the faith which would afterwards be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor, better, child custodian, to bring us These last three words are not in the original, to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that the faith has come. We're no longer under a tutor, that is child custodian. Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And, because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying out, Abba, Father. Therefore, You're no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Seven important points before we begin. First, faith, verses 23 and 25. Paul was not speaking about faith as a personal experience, that is, believing. Rather, he was speaking of the faith as the gospel, Christ. That is, who and what is to be believed. In other words, faith here is objective, not subjective. Secondly, to bring us, verse 24. These words are not in the original and should be removed. Being the unfortunate source of much misunderstanding, Paul did not say the law was given as a child custodian to bring us to Christ. Rather the law was in place as a child custodian until the coming of Christ. Verse 19. Thirdly, the tutor, verse 24. Greek, Paidagogos. Tutor, New King James Version. Schoolmaster, Authorized Version. In charge, NIB. Tutor, literally child conductor. New American Standard. Sadly, some of these translations, schoolmaster and tutor, even the transliteration pedagogue, give the misleading impression that the law was an educator, much like Didaskalos. This is not the meaning of Paidagogos. The word is a combination of pais, child, and agogos, leader, derived from ago. to drive, to lead by laying hold of, to conduct, with the idea of discipline. As Thayer explained, the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them, before reaching the age of manhood. The name carries with it an idea of severity, as of a stern censor and enforcer of morals. And linking this with the previous point, the child custodian's job was not to bring the immature boy anywhere, rather he had to discipline and protect the boy until he reached maturity. During that time, the Jews were held prisoners by the law, locked up by the law, verse 23, kept under guard by the law, confined by the law. Fourthly, what law was Paul speaking of? There is no room for doubt, none whatever. Paul was speaking of the entire Mosaic institution. He was not speaking of the moral law, the ceremonial law, or the judicial law, allowing the terms for the moment. Nor was he speaking of Jewish misunderstanding of the law or legalism. Or said, the law, and he meant the law, the law of Moses in its entirety, and he kept to it throughout the passage. Fifthly, What of the added? This word must not be misunderstood. The law was added to God's promise to Abraham, given 430 years before the law. Verse 19, Paul did not say that the law was incorporated into the promise or added to the promise in the sense that the pair made one covenant, a covenant of grace, quite the opposite in fact. The law came in as something extra to the promise, a distinct, separate and subordinate economy or system, not an alteration of, an adjustment to or modifier of the promise. The law did not belong to the existing system or promise. It was not part of it. It was something additional, not fundamental. It was an add-on. As the Apostle said, the law entered, Romans 5.20. The Greek word for entered is used only twice in the New Testament, Romans 5.20 and Galatians 2.4. In the latter it means sneaked in. While in Romans 5.20 it does not bear the evil sense of Galatians 2.4, nevertheless it possesses the connotation slipped in between. came in besides, in addition to. The law slipped in. Paul's emphasis on the law's temporary place in salvation history is obvious here. It ought to be unmistakable. The apostle went further. Do not forget the Judaizers' claim that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were one and the same. Paul did not fudge the issue. They could not be more wrong. He was adamant, going for the jugular. He categorically contrasted the two covenants. And let all concerned, the Galatians and the Judaizers, know the consequence of denying the contrast. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise. This he confirmed in Galatians 4, 24-26, where he argued that the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were two separate distinct covenants, not two parts of the same. What is more, throughout the letter to the Galatians, Paul stoutly preserved this separateness, standing firm against the Judaizers, who, as I say, wanted to blend the promise and the law into one. There is no question, but that Paul was thinking of the law's vital, though temporary, role in the unfolding of salvation history. That history is not flat, nor smoothly evolutionary in character. Rather, it's the record of God's interventions. God broke into the history of the world to give Abraham the promise. 430 years later, he intervened again to give Israel the law through Moses. Centuries later, at the right time, Galatians 4.4, he intervened again and sent his son, the seed, Galatians 3.19, he intervened again with the gift of the Spirit, Acts 2. To lose sight of Paul's eschatological argument is tragic. Moreover, As with the previous point, Paul was speaking about the law, the law in its entirety, the law full stop. It was the law, the whole law that was added 430 years after the promise. And it was the law, the whole law that was temporary in that God intended it to last until the coming of the seed. There's not the slightest hint that Paul was saying the whole law was given at Sinai, two thirds of which lasted until the coming of the seed, the remaining one third. being eternal. Sixthly, the us. When Paul said, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, have you become a curse for us? Verse 13, to whom was he referring? Was he speaking of elect Jews? Or was he speaking of the elect, both Jews and Gentiles? There are strong arguments for both. the problem of the us is not confined to Galatians 3 13 to 14 of course it also arises in verses 23 to 29 and chapter 4 verses 3 to 7 it is likely that Paul was speaking primarily of elect Jews and this is where the emphasis must fall yet encompassing all the elect both Jew and Gentile in Christ's redemption while historically and actually it was only the Jews who could be said to be under the law Paul probably included the Gentiles on the basis of Romans 2 14 to 15 and seventhly do not miss the unity which the Apostle stresses in this passage the seed is one Galatians 3 verse 16 God is one verse 20 and believers, whether Jew or Greek, are all one in Christ Jesus, verse 28. In short, Gentiles do not need to go under the law to belong to the people of God, or to ratify their belonging to that people. They should pay no attention to the Judaizers, who want them to submit to the law to make them kosher. In Christ they, along with believing Jews, are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. They, all of them, have put on Christ, are Christ's, and are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Verses 26-29 And that without the law. Having teased out these seven preliminarily, but far from trivial details, We can now get to grips with Paul's argument in Galatians 3 10-25. Trivial details, did I say? If they were to be grasped, it would signal an end to this debate on the believer and the law. Now for the passage. I take it up from Galatians 3 8. Paul reminded his readers of God's promise to Abraham that through him he would bless the nations, which promise, as the apostle explained, is fulfilled in the calling of the elect Jew and Gentile to faith and justification in Christ. This justification, Paul stressed, is by faith in Christ, not by the law. In fact, the law can only curse. It's antithetical to faith. But Christ has redeemed the elect from the law's curse. and in so doing has accomplished the promise God made to Abraham, namely that the elect, including Gentiles, should receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Verse 14. This takes us as far as the Apostle's earlier rhetorical question. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith? Verse 2. Having cleared the ground thus far, Paul powered on. Even a man's covenant cannot be broken, let alone God's. This principle the apostle worked out in the following verses, verses 15 to 18. Nothing can alter, let alone annul, God's promise and purpose in the Abrahamic covenant, not even the law. In short, the law cannot contribute to our justification, but neither can it do away with God's earlier promise. Such statements, of course, raise a question, and Paul asks it. If what you have said is true, why ever did God give the law to the Jews through Moses on Sinai? As the apostle put it, what purpose does the law serve? Verse 19. Good question. As always, you can tell whether or not you're getting Paul's drift. Does the question that he asks spring to your mind too? If the law could not justify, and if the Lord did not abolish the promise, why ever did God give it to the Jews? What purpose did God have in mind when he gave the law to Israel? Now for the answer. We're left in no doubt since Paul himself answered his own question, and his answer must be definitive. Settling the issue once and for all, here it is. The law? The purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made. Verse 19. There are two points. First, God's purpose in giving the law was to do with sin. It was added because of transgressions. Verse 19. While this is not easy to interpret, some things are clear. The law was not added because transgressions existed. Before the law, there could be no transgression. Rather, the law brought home the fact that sin which did exist was sin against God. It was transgression of His law. 1 John 3.4 The law having turned sin into transgression. Men were sinners before the giving of the law, of course, but the law turned sin into transgression. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Romans 4.15 5.13 What is more, While the entrance of the law did not create sin, it promoted it, increased it, exhibited it, defined it. This is what the law does. This is why it was added. It exposes sin and convicts the offender of it, Romans 3 and 7. It arouses sin, Romans 7, brings a curse, Galatians 3, slavery, Galatians 4, and wrath, Romans 4. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law, 1 Corinthians 15, verse 56. The law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, 1 Timothy 1. To break one commandment of the law is to incur the guilt of all, James 2. As for the Jews, the law was added. It was given to them as a prison keeper, a prison house, or child custodian, verses 23 to 25. Note Paul's stress upon being guarded, confined, restricted, locked up and ruled by the law. So important is this idea. To drive it home, the apostle uses the illustrations of slavery, Romans 6, marriage, Romans 7, the child custodian, Galatians 3, the steward, Galatians 4, and Hagar, Galatians 4. Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound, Romans 5.20. The offence? What offence? The offence of Adam's sin. Through one man sin entered the world, and death threw sin, and thus death spread to all men. By one man's offence many died. By the one man's offence death reigned through the one. Through one man's offence judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Romans 5, 12-19. Moreover, the law entered at the offence, Adam's offence, and its consequence throughout the human race might abound Romans 5 20. This was God's purpose or intention in giving the law. It was to make offense abound. In short, the law was to do with sin, transgression, guilt, wrath, curse, death, condemnation, prison and bondage. And it made the offense abound. This is why God added the law. This is why he gave the law to Israel. So much for the first point. Secondly, the law was only a temporary economy or system. It was added till the seed should come. Verse 19. Paul highlights this temporary nature of the law in two ways. In addition to the word added, which speaks of the law's supplementary role, note the words till the seed should come. I draw attention to the till. The law was revealed on Sinai to Moses, it was added, it entered at that time, Romans 5 and Galatians 3, and it entered the world to last only until the seed should come. This refers first and foremost to the law's historical significance. That is to say, it was a temporary system given to Israel through Moses four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham Galatians 3 17 and lasting till or until the coming of the seed who is the seed who was to come Christ and to your seed who is Christ verse 16 so now do not miss that vital eschatological word once again since the seed Christ has come reign of the law is over. The reign of the law must be over. The law's day is done, its sun has set. This is what the until means. Note the before and after in verse 23. As Paul stated, before the faith came, We were kept under guard by the law, kept for, shut up to, confined for, the faith which would afterwards be revealed. The time element is very prominent once again. Ice appears twice in Galatians 3 to 24. In both verses it means until. In neither does it mean to. Paul's argument is that until the coming of the faith, until the coming of the seed, until the coming of the Christ, until the bringing in of the gospel, it was the time or age of the law. Not only was it the time of the law, until the coming of Christ, the law reigned. The law kept under guard the Jews, imprisoning them, confining them, shutting them up to the coming of the gospel. For as Paul said, referring to Jewish history from Sinai to the coming of the Messiah, the law was our, that is for the Jews, child custodian to ice until Christ. Verse 24. Until the coming of Christ, the law was disciplining those under its rule, the Jews, shutting them up until the coming of the gospel in Christ. The law was put in charge until Christ came. Verse 24, the NIV footnote. But after the faith has come, that is, now that Christ has come and brought in the gospel, We're no longer under a child custodian, verse 25. We, the Jews, said Paul. The Gentiles never were under the law in any case. We are no longer under the law. So how could anybody be under the law since the age of the law is over, now that Christ has come? Now that faith, the gospel, has come, the law has served its purpose. for the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1.17 On the one hand, there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness. On the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. in that God says a new covenant he is made the first obsolete Hebrew 7 and 8 all this is reinforced by Paul's use of pedagogue the pedagogue was a guardian, a child custodian whose job it was to restrain a minor from immoral behavior and to protect him until he matured Once the juvenile reached maturity, however, the pedagogue's work was finished. He had no more to say over his former trainee. He was out of a job, surplus to requirements. His old power and rule had ended. Paul used this well-known practice to illustrate the law's relationship to the Jews, standing over them, keeping them in line throughout the age of the law. The Mosaic order, the old covenant administration, economy, dispensation, the law, was the pedagogue which kept Israel in order until the coming of Christ and his new covenant. Once Christ had come, however, believing Jews were no longer under the law, verse 25. And if Jewish believers are no longer under the law, then of course Neither are Gentile believers. Note the repetition of under, the key word, in under guard by the law, under a child custodian, under guardians and stewards, and under the elements of the world, and under the law. Galatians 3, 23 and 25, chapter 4 and verses 2 to 3 and 5. The repetition of under, and the thrust of the argument, show these phrases are all saying one and the same thing, which is, the law bringing in and imposing rules governed and guarded the way the Jews behaved, confining them under itself. The law was over the Jews, they were under it, under its grip, under its power. It rebuilt sin, and aroused or stimulated it. As we shall see later, Paul says the same thing in Romans 6 and 7. In both Galatians and Romans, the Apostle makes it as clear as noonday that there are two stages of salvation history, the former age under law, and the present age under Christ, under grace. the apostle always heavily contrasts the two the former age was the age or realm of bondage the latter freedom now when Paul spoke of being under the law he meant more than being under his curse he meant being under it under the law as a system, under it as a realm under it as a rule of behavior under the law as a child custodian, under its reign, under its grip, under its power. It's all a question of maturity, of age, epoch, realm and status. To be under the law is to be under a child custodian, whereas to be under Christ is to be free. Just as a mature man is no longer under the child custodian, So the believer is no longer under the law, no longer subject to the imposition of its rule. And since this is so, how can believers think of going under the law? After all, the child custodian only had a job while the child was immature. When the child reached maturity, not only did the child custodian's work, but the child custodian himself was finished. Well then, as Paul states so clearly, believers are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, verse 26. Sons? The Apostle uses huioi, grown-up, mature sons, and he declares that believers, all believers, the moment they trust Christ, are fully mature, adopted sons of God. Consequently, just as on reaching maturity the minor was released from the child custodian, the believer being a mature son cannot possibly be under the law. See Galatians 4, 1-7, where the apostle clearly contrasts the infant, Napios, with the son, Hewios. In short, for converted Jews to go back to Moses, or for converted Gentiles who never had the law to go under Moses, is unthinkable or ought to be. Here we have it, Galatians 3 10-25 shows us that there have been two great ages, two epochs in human history. First, the age of the law from Moses to Christ, and then the age of grace under Christ. And these two ages are simply contrasted with each other. The law was a temporary or interim measure, a parenthesis, an age which Christ in the gospel brought to an end and did away with. Paul's compelling line of reasoning in this Galatian passage is from start to finish to do with the eschatological, the historical, and he builds his case with invincible clarity and devastating power. The temporary, provisional age of the law was abrogated with the eschatological finality the temporary provisional age of the law was abrogated with eschatological finality by Christ when he brought in the gospel revelation such is Paul's majestic argument all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, Matthew 11, 13. So said the Lord Jesus. Even as he spoke, the age of law was coming to its appointed end. And when Christ died at that moment, God tore down the temple curtain, Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23. The age and reign of the law was over. The law had been fulfilled. Christ, having brought it to the end that God had always determined for it." Matthew 5, 17-18, Romans 10, 4. This is what Paul teaches in Galatians 3, 10-25. This section of Scripture, it might well be argued, constitutes the zenith of the apostles' teaching on the law. But many place a very different construction on the passage. very different. They say that Galatians 3 19-24 speaks of the personal experience of conviction of sin during an individual's experience of coming to faith in Christ. Paul, they allege, was saying the Spirit uses the law to convict the sinner, closing every avenue but grace, forcing him to Christ for relief from his sins by trusting him for salvation. In other words, the law rules over an individual unregenerate sinner until Christ has come savingly to that individual sinner. Furthermore, the law brings us to Christ. Verse 24. It's not a question of history at all. It's a personal experience today. And these teachers, building on this personal idea, say that the preaching of the law is essential in order to prepare the sinner to come to Christ. I spoke of this supposed preparationism by the law in chapter 4, but I promise to return to it and explore the biblical text, which is misused to support it. I do so now. This notion of personal preparation by the law is not what Paul was arguing, not at all. For a start, as I've explained, to bring us is a translator's insertion, and a bad insertion at that. Paul said nothing of the sort. Preparationism's entire edifice is built on this non-existent textual foundation. But preparationism comes to grief on far more than a single text. It's the context For a start, consider the immediate context from Galatians 3.10. The apostle was clearly speaking of two ages in the history of the world. Before the coming of the seed, and after. He was not remotely addressing the individual's personal experience. No. He was taking a grand, overall view of the sweep of the history of redemption. Then there is the wider context of Galatians to bear in mind. How preparationism can be made to fit with that I am at a loss to comprehend. The Judaizers got some things wrong, but after all, they were preaching the law, just the job for bringing sinners to Christ. Strange then that Paul did not commend them for this part of their ministry, merely fine-tuning the bit they got wrong. And then there is the wider context still. the rest of the New Testament. If the Apostle in Galatians 3.24 had been setting out the way a sinner is brought to Christ, we ought to find several examples of apostolic preaching of the law to Gentiles, especially by Paul. After all, so we are told this is the way for sinners to come to Christ. So where are these examples in Scripture? We find none, not one. Why did the apostle not take his own medicine? Why did he not make use of this sovereign way of bringing sinners to the Savior? If that is, this passage teaches what is claimed for it. Yet he with the other apostles saw many Gentile sinners converted to Christ without first preaching the law to them. Why, Paul told us his method was the very opposite of the idea. He explained how when wanting to win those who are without the law, he himself went without the law, 1 Corinthians 9.21. How anybody can argue that the right way to preach the gospel to Gentiles is to begin with the law, when Paul expressly says that he set his faith against such a practice, baffles me. And certainly, his sermons to Gentiles, as documented in Acts 14 and 17, lend no support whatever to the claim that he preached the law. On the contrary, they amplify and more than justify what he said about his guiding principles in 1 Corinthians 9.21. As I say, in chapter 4 I fully developed this point. But let me take time to give one further biblical case to prove that preparationism by the law is wrong. Moreover, it's the obvious case. since it's Paul's choice in Galatians 3, 10-25. And what a case! I refer, of course, to Abraham, the pivotal figure in the human race as far as the history of redemption is concerned. Nor must the contextual significance, the Judaizers' attack, be missed. To make his point about conversion, Paul went back not to Moses, but to Abraham. When we first meet Abraham in Scripture, he is an unbeliever, a pagan, uncircumcised, Romans 4. A spiritually dead sinner, without God, Romans 5, 12-14. Yet, in this very state, he is confronted with God's command to quit his homeland, which he obeys, receives the promise of God, and is justified by faith, and all this without any personal experience of conviction by the law to bring him to Christ. How could he have had a law work? The law was not given for another 430 years. Even so, he is the prime example in scripture of believing in Christ for justification. And this, without the law. the tragedy of misunderstanding and misapplying Galatians 3 10-25. It's far wider than this question of preparationism, however, though that is serious enough in all conscience. The Galatian passage is vital for understanding the place and purpose of the law in salvation history. Failure to see this point is tragic beyond words. We must not miss the big picture. Paul was speaking about the two great epochs, law and grace, law and gospel, before Christ and after Christ. The apostle in this passage most definitely was not concerned with an individual's experience of conviction of sin and subsequent conversion. No. While the individual's experience is, of course, of the utmost importance to the individual, as it was to Paul, see Galatians 5. The apostle here was speaking of something on a much vaster scale, namely the historical aspect of the law in the history of salvation. Paul was referring to the law's reign over the Jews in the age before Christ came. The apostle said that the law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come, verse 19. When the seed came, the law's work was over. This is what Paul said, this is what he meant. To say that the law must be preached before the gospel, in order to convict sinners and bring them to Christ, is to miss the point and to minimize Galatians 3. As I said, when looking at Calvin's uses of the law, Paul was speaking of the historical role of the law and its temporary nature. It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, not of its supposed role in restraining sin in the unregenerate. The idea that law exists today to do something which was ended nearly 2,000 years ago by the coming of Christ is remarkable, to say the least. Coming from the other direction, if the law was given to bring sinners to Christ, Why was it limited to the time that the seed should come? Surely Calvin and those who follow him argue that the law does that work nowadays, do they not? Consequently, the notion that Galatians 3.24 justifies the preaching of the law to prepare sinners for Christ is quite wrong. And it's just as wrong to preach the law to believers to sanctify them. The passage above all is historical in both its meaning and context. It is eschatological. It explains the two great systems of God's dealings with men, namely through Moses or Christ, by law or by grace, John 1.17. In particular it sets out the passing of the old age and Christ's bringing in of the time of the new order, Hebrews 9.10. The historical nature of the Galatian passage must be emphasized. It is absolutely paramount. It cannot be overstated. It certainly can be understated. Worse, it can be ignored. Worst of all, the passage can be warped to make it teach that which Paul never did. And this, of course, brings us back to the main issue. namely Calvin's third use of the law for sanctification. A right understanding of Galatians 3, I say, utterly destroys the idea. How? As I've already noted, even on the Reformers' mistaken understanding of Galatians 3, 24-25, once the sinner has come to Christ, he is no longer under the law. of course the idea that Paul was talking about the believer's individual experience is a bad mistake, falling far short of what the apostle really was thinking of. I say it again, do not miss the big picture. The passage teaches that there have been two great ages in the history of the world, the age of the law and the age of grace. The age of the law was temporary, It is over now that Christ has come. How then can the law be the means and the motive for the believer's sanctification? The believer belongs to a totally different age. Grace, not law, is the age in which the believer lives. Grace, not law, must be the means and motive for his sanctification. What is more, the fact that God gave Abraham and Moses two separate distinct covenants is utterly basic to Paul's doctrine in Galatians 3 10-25. God, having long before Moses, established his covenant with Abraham, indeed 430 years before the law. What is more, the fact that God gave Abraham and Moses two separate distinct covenants is utterly basic to Paul's doctrine in Galatians 3 10-25 God having long before Moses established his covenant with Abraham indeed 430 years before the law the Judaizers wanted to meld the two covenants into one Paul would have none of it the two covenants he argued are distinct and contrasting being so obvious It is staggering that anyone should question it. But they do. The spiritual aspect of Abraham's covenant is nothing less than the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant is the law. That these two covenants in question are utterly different is likewise fundamental to understanding the Bible. Which takes it for granted, no less. To say otherwise is to make nonsense of Paul's teaching. In the one covenant, God declared to Abraham and to all his spiritual seed what he, God, would do. It was God's promise, the covenant of promise. In the other covenant, God commanded the people through Moses as to what they must do. You shall keep my statutes and my judgments. which if a man does, he shall live by them. And it was verified by the consent of the people. The Abrahamic covenant in the new is unbreakable, whereas the Mosaic covenant was conditional. Sadly, it was broken. The promise is of faith on the basis of grace. The law was of works, a question of earning and meriting. The promise brings blessing. the law brought a curse, and so on. Now these are large differences. Differences? Contrast is the word. The two are mutually exclusive. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise. Galatians 3.18. If those of the law are heirs, faith is made void. and the promise made of no effect. Romans 4.14 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law. You have fallen from grace. Galatians 5.4 If by grace, then it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. Romans 11.6 How, as many claim, the Mosaic covenant can be thought to be one and the same as the Abrahamic covenant, or that it is a fresh administration of the covenant of grace, defies common sense. Worse, it defies Scripture. As I've already observed, very often we contest our understanding of Paul by looking at the questions he raises, after making his staggering assertions. Paul frequently raised objections to his doctrine. We shall meet it again. And here is a case in point. I draw your attention in particular to Paul's use of the word then. What purpose then does the law serve? Is the law then against the promises of God? Galatians 3 19 and 21. In other words, Paul said, in light of my, that is, Paul's teaching, which I admit sounds so startling, how then does the law square with the promise? Now, if the commonly held Reformed view is right, and the law and the gospel comprise one covenant, if it is essential to preach the law to sinners before preaching the gospel, And if it is essential to take sinners once converted back to the law to sanctify them, Paul would never have asked such a redundant question as, what purpose then does the law serve? Why the law then? Such a question could be raised only by someone who knows the two systems are very different, whose teaching has exposed the difference, and yet who needs to make sure his readers do not denigrate the law. No one who teaches the standard Reform view needs to ask such a question. It simply does not arise. Nor would his hearers ever think of it. It would never cross their mind. Under his teaching, they are never exposed to thinking the law is different to grace, since he has taught them that the law and the gospel are virtually one and the same covenant. If a Reformed teacher did ask such a question, he would surely be shouted down, dismissed. As we all know, and after all, as you taught us, the law serves to prepare the sinner for Christ and to sanctify the saint. That's the law's purpose. You yourself told us. So why are you asking such a daft question? Consequently, the fact that Paul raised this very question using the word then, and yet did not give the standard answer, proves he was no advocate of the reformed first and third uses of the law. Far from it, the truth is he had to explain how the law fitted in with the promise. The law, he said, was temporary, confining the Jews until Christ came. Thus it is the historical setting of Galatians 3 10-25 which must be grasped. It must not be lost in a welter of words about preaching the law to pagan sinners today. Do not miss the big picture. In the Apostle's Question, the word serve is not in the original. The original reads, Why then the law? The serve has been added by translators. Very well. But what tense should they have chosen? Is it, what purpose did the law serve? Or what purpose does the law now serve? The context speaks of the past. This seems to put it no stronger to teach that the law has no ongoing function for the believer. But if Paul did ask, what purpose does the law now serve? Why ever did he not reply along the lines of Calvin's threefold use of the law? Why did the Spirit leave it for 1,500 years until he made it known to the churches through the Reformer? This is not the same as saying men cannot discuss a problem before it arises. For instance, John Owen did not tackle being slain in the Spirit. For Paul was dealing with the precise issue in hand at this very point. and he was inspired so why did he not give the classic reformed answer we may put it to the test ask any reformed teacher to tell us the purpose of the law and he will rattle off Calvin's threefold use now ask Paul well we may go further As I've emphasized, the era of the law was temporary. It was only an interlude, but a God-ordained interlude, I hasten to add, in God's great plan for the ages. And God gave Moses the law with the intention that it should last only until the establishment of the new covenant by Christ. The entire law, not the law's mode of administration, was abolished by the coming of Christ. As for the law of Moses being temporary, note the following, in that God says a new covenant, he is made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away, Hebrews 8, 2 Corinthians 3. As for vanish away, The same root word is used in, what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away, James 4. This opens up an interesting parallel between the temporary nature of the law and the limited temporary lifespan of man. The days of our lives are 70 years, Psalm 90. As soon as we are born, we begin to die. As for a man, his days are like grass. as a flower of the field, so he flourishes. For the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more. Man is like a breath. His days are like a passing shadow. Our days are numbered. Similarly, the law of Moses came with a sell-by date stamped on it. It was a temporary passing shadow which, when its God-appointed task was done at God's predestined time, it would vanish away. And with the coming of Christ and his accomplishment of his Father's purpose, the law's work was over, completed and fulfilled. The age of the law had passed. In addition to this temporary aspect, there is also a parallel, a connection indeed, between the frailty of man and the weakness of the law, Romans 8 verse 3. Which weakness? We shall explore in the following chapter. I have spent some time on this section of Galatians because its importance can scarcely be exaggerated. As I have said repeatedly, do not miss the big picture. I have laboured the point simply because many Reformed writers claim the two covenants, Law and Grace, are one and the same, and because they build so much upon it. The fact is, the view we take of Galatians 3 19-20 will largely determine how we think of the believer and the Law. Recall Paul's argument thus far. in dealing with the Judaizers, their claim that the covenants are one and the same, and their call for the believers to go under the law. He has drawn on the Galatians' experience. He has appealed to Scripture. He has called upon human reason in using an analogy from everyday life, and applied it to God's dealings with men. He has explicitly set out the temporary nature of the Law's reign. He has proved that the Galatians already have all they need spiritually, God's promise, the Christ, and the Spirit, and they have it without the Law. How can they think of going to the Law, in face of the evidence He has produced? What purpose could it serve? The Law's son has said, But it must be noticed, in light of this, Paul has to answer the question, if this really is the state of things, why then was the law given in the first place? And this is the very question that Paul raises and answers. In truth, he has already answered it. The law was not given to believers in the age of the gospel. It was given to Jews before the coming of Christ. And those Jews had to live under the bondage of that law, even though it did not give them any power to meet its demands. But now that Christ has come, that age is over. The law has ceased. It has not ceased in part or to certain ends. It has ceased. The law, the age of the law is over. With the coming of Christ, Salvation history has entered a new age, the age of the Spirit. Israel's pedagogue the law has gone, the Spirit has come. And it is the Holy Spirit, not the law, as a pedagogue, who sanctifies the believer. The verb led in Galatians 5.18 comes from the same word as pedagogue, an example of Paul's love of wordplay. The believer is pedagogued by the Spirit. not the law, now that in the fullness of time Christ has come, and the Spirit has been given. The law's time is finished. Now is the age of the Spirit. Now is the time for walking in and by the Spirit. To sum up Galatians 3 10-25 The law was given through Moses, it was given to Israel, it was given because of sin, it imprisoned and disciplined those under it. It was never intended to be permanent, but to last only until the coming of Christ. Can it be thought that a believer ought to go under the law? To make Gentile believers in the new covenant conform to the law of the old covenant, which was intended to discipline unregenerate Jews in the age before the coming of Christ, is nothing short of incredible. May I say it just once more. The big picture here in Galatians 3 is of massive importance. Do not miss it. And having seen it, do not forget it. Galatians 4.12 Brethren, I urge you to become like me, for I became like you, you King James. Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am, for I am as you are, the authorized version. I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you, and I be. I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are." New American Standard. At first glance, this verse seems to have nothing to say on the believer and the law. But the fact is, in all these translations, words have been added, words which may actually mislead the reader. Literally, the apostle said, Be as I, for I also as you, brothers, I beseech you. Leaving aside for the moment the I beseech or urge or plead with you, over which there is no question, did Paul say that he had become like the Galatians were? Or did he say that he had become like the Galatians are? Or did he say that he is become like they were? Or did he say that he is become like they are? And what, in any case, was he speaking about? I would not be dogmatic. I merely offer the following as a suggestion, but it has the support of noteworthy commentators. I urge you to become like me, because I became like you. In other words, in light of all that the Apostle has set out in the letter thus far, he could be saying, I urge you to become like me. That is, one who, being in Christ, lives as I should, dead to the law, since I died to the law. Because I became like you. That is, in order to reach you, to win you, I became like you. one who was in bondage and who is now by these Judaizers in danger of being taken under the law. In short, we have the Apostle urging the Galatians on the basis of his teaching of 1 Corinthians 9, 19-23, Galatians 2, 16, 19-20, Titus 2, 11-38, and the other passages which we are yet to consider. In effect, Paul was making his readers choose between him and Judaizers. They want you to go to the law and live under the law. I don't. I urge you, I plead with you, stay with me. And of course, bearing in mind the theme of the letter, he must have had sanctification in his sights. In other words, the apostle was confronting his readers with a choice. Is it going to the law for sanctification? Or is it going to Christ by the Spirit for sanctification? What's your position? In so doing, the Apostle was passionately repeating and enforcing all that he had taught thus far, bringing the matter to a head, as it were, unashamedly personalizing it for the Galatians, forcing them to the biting point, demanding their verdict, but letting them know in no uncertain terms what he was desperately longing for. On the other hand, Paul may have been saying nothing at all about the law. Instead, he may well have been using a kind of proverb to urge the Galatians to love him as much as he loved them. Although I would not press it, my view is that the former of these two is the more likely And if so, it adds weight to Paul's argument in Galatians. But whatever the doubts about what Paul said in Galatians 4.12, there is no such question mark over the next section. And what a section it is! Just before we get into it, may I repeat what I said about Galatians 3.10-25. In what follows, do not miss the big picture. This is where the Apostle rolls his sleeves up and, grappling with all his might, wrestles with both the Judaizers and the Galatians. In so doing, he brings us face to face with one of the greatest of all themes of the New Covenant, the believer's freedom in Christ. In arguing out this huge principle, Paul grabs hold of the Judaizers claim that the promise and the law are one covenant and shakes it to pieces. Above all he comes to close quarters with the Galatians and their desire to go under the law. Nobody at that time could be under any illusion as to what he thought about that, nor can we today. Nothing therefore nothing could be more relevant to the issue in hand Galatians 4 21 to chapter 5 verse 1 Tell me you who desire to be under the law Do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through the promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is and is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, O barren, you who do not bear. Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor. For the desolate has many more children than she who has a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what does the scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, We are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. I have already looked at this allegory. We are not dealing here with some minor matter. Rather, the apostle is talking about the two covenants which tower over the entire range of scripture, namely the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant. As I've explained, the Abrahamic covenant comprised two parts or strands. The one that concerns us here, as it did Paul in Galatians 3, verses 6 to 29, is that part of the Abrahamic covenant which came over into the New Covenant. Now for the Apostle's teaching, and his teaching is crystal clear. in light of the Judaizers' insistence that the two covenants are one. No, retorted the apostle. These two great covenants, the Mosaic, that is Hagar, and the new in the Abrahamic, that is Sarah, are chalk and cheese. Not only that, believers are in the new covenant and they must not allow themselves to be taken under the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant. the law. Why not? Paul immediately explained, thundering out these words. For freedom Christ has made us free. Stand fast therefore, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Galatians 5 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. New American Standard. The opening note of Galatians 5 is vital. If grasped, the debate about the believer and the law is over. Freedom! Liberty! Liberty! Freedom! That glorious note of the gospel, the sinner's freedom, as the result of justification, is Paul's triumphant cry, setting the tone for what follows. Note his abrupt, dogmatic statement, for freedom Christ has made us free. Note the striking way Paul puts it, the emphatic order of his words, for freedom Christ has made us free. Note the seeming tautology, for freedom, free, which so powerfully stresses the for freedom. Modern editors no doubt would get Paul to tidy up his manuscript, but not the Holy Spirit. Oh no. Why? It was the Spirit who chose such a terse way of speaking. The form of Paul's Greek the very sound of his words, and their repetitive nature reverberates, thumping home his point. By giving his readers and hearers a linguistic jolt as they move from Galatians 4.31 to 5.1, with no chapter or verse divisions of course, the apostle compels them to pause, draw breath, and ask what is going on. His words would have electrified the Galatian congregation as his letter was read aloud, the listeners sensing that something out of the ordinary, something of high significance was being put before them. Paul astutely employs this outburst to draw his readers and hearers' attention to the climax of his letter. He's forcing the Galatians to sit up, pin their ears back, take notice and think clearly about what they have in Christ and what therefore is being fatally threatened by the desire to submit to the Judaizers call for obedience to the law which is freedom it is freedom which is paramount and it is freedom which pour stresses in this punchy arresting way what is this freedom It is, as before, freedom from sin, death, and the law. In particular here, the law. The law, I stress. It is not freedom from the ceremonial law, or freedom from the curse of the law. It is freedom from the law. What is more, it is not merely freedom from the law for justification that the apostle speaks of. certainly not. In Galatians 5 and 6 Paul is clearly speaking of the justification of the sinner and his consequent sanctification. He is addressing brethren, not unbelievers, calling them to walk worthy of God and his main concern is to tell them that if they try to use the law as the way of sanctification it will inevitably lead to enslavement, bondage to rules, and will never produce the godliness desired. This is the theme of the entire letter, and Galatians 5, 13-18 is surely its high watermark. Yes, Paul deals with the danger of going to the law for justification, verses 2-12. See you later. But it is a grievous mistake to limit the believer's liberty and the threat to it to justification. Such a restriction indefensibly diminishes the letter to the Galatians. In any case, justification always leads to sanctification and is intimately bound up with it. No, sanctification is the issue. Let us remind ourselves of the Apostle's rhetorical questions, which came earlier in the letter. This only I want to learn from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? He who supplies the Spirit to you, does he do it by the works of the law? or by the hearing of faith. Galatians 3 2-5 When the Apostle asks, Are you now being made perfect? What is he talking about? Justification? There is no being made about justification. It is instantaneous. No, a man must be deliberately blind if he cannot see that Paul is addressing sanctification here. Moreover, what he is asking is this. Are you being sanctified by the law? That too stands out as plain as noonday. Above all, his question is rhetorical, remember. He's not asking out of doubt, seeking instruction. Not at all. He is demanding a response. And the response he demands and expects is what? Fill in the answer for yourself. Are you being sanctified by the law? Are you seeking to be sanctified by the law? Do you think it's possible to be sanctified by the law? If the answer is yes, then remember what is at stake. Your liberty in Christ. No, I didn't say it. Well, I did. But it was Paul the Apostle who told you so. Just as he told the Galatians. Having grasped his reader's attention, in verse 1, Paul issues two sharp commands, two commands which follow as a direct consequence of his teaching. The first, positive. Therefore stand, or keep standing firm. Virtually a military command putting backbone into unnerved soldiers. the second negative, and do not be entangled again, or do not be subject again to a yoke of bondage or slavery. This dramatic verse therefore opens with freedom or liberty, and closes with the risk of the loss of that liberty, namely slavery or bondage. Liberty, freedom is the idea, the crux, Without a doubt, as I said at the start of this chapter, liberty as opposed to bondage is a major leitmotif throughout the letter. This is what the Apostle is fighting for. This is why he is sparing no effort in his defense of the Galatians against the Judaizers. There's no academic nicety which concerns the Apostle. Paul is wrestling for liberty, as opposed to slavery, and that not in the abstract. Paul is wrestling for the Galatians' liberty. He is wrestling for every believer's liberty, for my liberty, and, Christian listener, for your liberty. Please keep this personal note in mind as you listen. Liberty. Christ did not accomplish merely the forgiveness of sins for his people. His intention was to liberate his people, to free them from their sins, that they might have freedom. If the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed, John 8, 36. Freedom, liberty, no more slavery, the end of bondage. Christ died to redeem his people. To redeem is to purchase, to buy back in order to deliver, especially to pay a ransom for a slave, to set him free from his captivity. Christ shed his blood to redeem his people, to redeem them from the law, to redeem them from the enslaving fear of death, to redeem them from sin, from its condemnation, dominion, and in eternity, its presence. It is a real redemption which Christ wrote. Christ really has freed his people from sin, death and hell. Here, freedom from the law. Believers are free, truly free, actually free, now. An abundance of scriptures prove what I just said in that paragraph. Paul's emphasis on liberty in Galatians 5 as I have pointed out, comes hard on the heels of his allegory or metaphor of Hagar and Sarah in chapter 4. Hagar, the slave woman, corresponds to the law given on Sinai which gives birth to bondage. Verse 24. Here we have the sinner's problem, bondage. Problem did I call it. Ask any slave if he has a problem. Sarah, however, corresponds to the other covenant. Verses 22 to 26. The covenant of freedom. The new covenant. Here we have God's glorious answer for the sinner. Freedom. Agar speaks of the enslaved. Sarah speaks of the free. Do the two make one covenant? Can they be combined? What does the scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman. and what is Paul's conclusion, his application? Believers are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Believers are not slaves, they're free. Sinai, the law, spelled bondage. Christ brought freedom. Believers are not children of the law, but children of grace. They must not go back to the law. They dare not go back to bondage. Paul paints the contrast in stark tones. In light of the Judaizers calling them to go under the law, he presents the Galatians with an ultimatum. It's freedom or slavery. And he uses the allegory to tell them what they must do. Cast out the barn woman and her son. He leaves them with no alternative. Paul is not telling them merely not to submit to the law, please note. Rather, they must get rid of every suggestion that they should submit to it. They must not listen to the Judaizers. On no account give them house room. As John, when he faced another set of false teachers, put it to his readers, watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. 2 John 8-11 The Galatians must get their brain in gear, start thinking properly, thinking as New Covenant people, and give up this incredible desire to be under the law. Galatians 4.21 Paul snaps out. Don't you hear the law? Driving home his point, the apostle goes on to tell them some basic truths about the law. After all, the majority of the Galatians were almost certainly Gentiles, and therefore largely ignorant of its daily realities. And one thing we can be sure of, the Judaizers certainly wouldn't have told them. See 2 Corinthians 11, 12-15. Indeed, the agitators would have acted much as the false teachers Peter wrote against, promising others liberty, while they themselves were slaves. 2 Peter 2 verse 19. Speaking of the Judaizers, Paul was adamant. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law. But they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. Galatians 6 verse 13. So I say, Paul lets the Galatians have some home truths to think about, and he pulls no punches. In particular, he stresses that the law enslaves all who are under it, while Christ, at such tremendous cost, has bought freedom for his people, not least freedom from the law. Liberty, do you really want to put that in jeopardy? Circumcision's only the first step. I know that's all the Judaizers are calling for at the moment, but if you take that step, let me tell you where you will end up. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm then, and don't let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words, I, Paul, tell you, that if you let yourselves be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law Galatians 5 1-3 and that means slavery furthermore the Apostle presses home the point by referring to the Galatians own experience Because you are the sons of God, you are free. Don't lose this, he passionately urges them. Don't be enslaved all over again by going back under the law. You're not slaves. Give up this madness. This is why he writes to them. This is why he utters his cry, his great cry, for freedom. Christ has made us free. From which follows his directive. Stand fast, therefore. and don't be entangled again with the yoke of bondage or slavery. Bondage is the very antithesis of the Christian's experience. Do not go back to it. Would Christ have set his people free from the prison house, the law, to take them straight back into it? Christ's purpose in coming into the world and going to the cross was to set his people free. How wrong then to fix the manacles of the law onto the saints. As is done when the law is made the rule of sanctification. Believers are free, free from the yoke of bondage, whether God's law, pagan principles or man-made regulations. And this includes what the Reformed call the moral law, the Ten Commandments. None of this will sanctify And sanctification, do not forget, is Paul's concern. Keep in mind the rhetorical questions he posed in Galatians 3, 2-5. Is sanctification by the law? Of course not. The truth is, freedom from the bondage of the law is the very freedom for which Christ made us free. Liberty from the law. Freedom from the law, for stop. and this freedom is the release from subservience to the law. Christ has accomplished this through his death and by his resurrection, and by the work of his Spirit. Consequently, any dropping back into bondage is utterly out of the question, or ought to be. I hope I am getting through to you. I want you to feel the passion in Paul's words I want you to get some of the sense of the depth of his emotion. Desperately anxious lest he should fail, tormented by the thought that the Galatians might be gullible enough to yield to the Judaizers and go under the law, the apostle beseeched them not to do it. Don't do it, he pleased, with every fibre of his being. As an advocate in court who, in his closing speech, takes his last chance to appeal for his client's life, his cry is vehement, earnest, and intense. If the Galatians allow themselves to be enslaved all over again, all will be lost. This is Paul's last throw. It is all or nothing. Come to think of it, my illustration of the advocate fails miserably. The advocate is quite rightly a professional, disinterested, not the apostle. He's in the pains of childbirth. Chapter 4, 19. In my mind's eye I can see him, tears coursing down his cheeks, his arms outstretched, his fervent words flowing apace. This is how serious it is. The believer is free from the law. If we do not grasp this fact, we shall never know the believer's rule of holiness. Believers must never allow their freedom to be whittled away. We have to assert it, maintaining it against any and every effort that draws back into bondage. The sun has made the believer free, and the believer must jealously guard that most precious of commodities, freedom. By nature we were in bondage. By grace, we now are free. Our duty is to stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free. The law is not the way, either of justification or sanctification. We must not yield an inch. Stand fast. For the believer's freedom is always exposed to attack, and on two fronts. It was so in the apostolic days. It is today. Paul showing the deepest pastoral concern for the Galatians now moves on to deal with each of these attacks. Having made his opening basic statement, and issued his general command in verse 1, it is for freedom that Christ has made you free, and you must never let yourselves be entangled again, he immediately goes on to tackle and demolish these two particular threats to the believer's liberty. First, in Galatians 5, 2-12, he deals with the attack arising out of the attempted misuse of the law in justification. As above, and despite all I have said, I agree with the Reformed at this point, but I do not limit the freedom to justification. Infinitely more important, nor does Paul. This is precisely where the Reformed career off the rails. Secondly, In Galatians 5.13 and following, he deals with the attack arising out of the attempted misuse of the law in sanctification. We're not justified by the law, nor are we sanctified by the law. It is this second point which is relevant to my book, and on which I will spend more time. But just a word or two on the first attack. Paul deals with the attack on justification, Galatians 5.2-12. By becoming confused about justification, believers can lose the liberty Christ has accomplished for them, and to which he has called them. Indeed, it is far worse than losing liberty. You have become estranged from Christ. You who attempt to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. This is no storm in a teacup, much ado about nothing. There's always a tendency for sinners to go to the law for justification, but it's also a danger for believers to think in terms of the law for justification. They need constant reminding that their justification is all of grace, all of it. It is precisely this which Paul addresses in Galatians 5, 2-12. The truth is, if believers start to link justification and the law, they will lose their sense of no condemnation, Romans 8, 1 lose their sense of assurance and they will do so because they will begin to look to works, to the law and to their obedience for justification instead of looking to Christ, only to Christ and always to Christ Satan tries to make them do it forced teachers want them to do it and the flesh hankers after it but it is utterly misguided utterly wrong For believers to allow themselves to be taken one step along that path is not only foolish, it is completely abhorrent. And there'll be no end to it. Circumcision, a speck of yeast it might be thought, will infect the whole loaf. Galatians 5, 9. If the Galatians yield to the Judaizers, if they buy into their teaching, however small a step at first, they will end up estranged from Christ, fallen from grace. Verse four. Those Judaizers, those agitators. The apostle could not express his feelings more bluntly, more starkly, or more passionately as he cries out to the Galatians. You are running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. But little yeast works through the whole batch of dough. I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves." Verses 7 to 12. Reader, by thinking about what he meant by emasculate themselves and bearing in mind the consequences of it under the law, you get some idea of the depth of Paul's emotion here. Stop. Enough of this. Let me call a spade a spade. and spell it out as the Good News translation does. I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way. Let them go on and castrate themselves. That's what the Apostle said, fulminating against the Judaizers. His righteous anger knows no bounds. The agitator's ruination of the Galatians is staring him in the face, and he hates the very thought of it. Get rid of these lawmongers, get rid of them. So far so good. But this is far from the only threat to the liberty of Galatians 5.1. As I've observed, Paul now goes on to deal with the other danger, the danger that believers will allow themselves to be taken to the law for sanctification. Let me set the scene. All this talk of freedom, and it's Paul's talk, please remember, might it not easily spill over into license? If the law is not the believer's rule, what is? Now this is precisely the point Paul tackles in Galatians 5.13 to 6.10. The law is gone. Freedom in Christ by the Spirit is come. So said the apostle. Yes, but how will this work out in daily practice? How will the Spirit direct the believer? If Paul had not tackled this issue, but left it unresolved, he would have been highly irresponsible. Paul, a master teacher? He would have been acting as a cavalier father might, utterly irresponsible, in letting his infant wander into a gum powder factory, having handed the child a lighted taper. There is no need to fear, however. Here we have the Apostle's definitive response. but it's just because the Apostle did respond, just because he felt it necessary to explain, that we can be sure that we have truly grasped his meaning. The believer is not under the law for sanctification. If Paul had held the Reformed view, he would never have needed to pen this extended passage on the means and motive of sanctification, never. This is not the first time I have drawn attention to this point. The fact that Paul needs to correct these misunderstandings, so-called, is proof positive that he was teaching what I have argued. I cannot overstress the significance of this. No book which tried to prove the believer is under the law for sanctification, or was written on that basis, would ever need to stress the necessity of good works. But Paul does. Nor is this the last of it. When looking at Romans, we shall see yet again how preaching the gospel properly leaves a man open to the false charge of antinomianism. It did the Apostle. This simple fact, that the Apostle had to correct any misunderstanding about good works, on its own drives the clinching nail into the coffin of the Reformed view of the law and the believer. Nobody could accuse the Reformed of preaching antinomianism. And if there was nothing else to say, that fact by itself is fatal for Calvin's third use of the law. Now for the Apostle's statement. And what a statement it is! Galatians 5 13-18 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty. Only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I say then, walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary to one another. so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Do not miss the obvious. Paul is clearly writing to believers, brethren the cold. He is writing to them about their liberty in Christ. In particular, he is reasoning with them over the connection between their liberty and the Spirit. and the threat to their liberty by the law. And all is in connection with their sanctification. Finally, do not forget that the law is the law. As I've already indicated, in this passage Paul is working out his statement in Galatians 5.1. having, in Galatians 5, 2-12, dealt with the first of the two threats to the believer's liberty, going to the law for justification. At Galatians 5, 13, Paul takes up the main theme once again, the theme he spelled out in Galatians 5, 1, and moves to the second threat I mentioned, that is, going to the law for sanctification. For freedom Christ has made us free. Stand fast, therefore, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. For you, brethren, have been called to liberty. Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law." Paul's response can be paraphrased thus. What is true for justification is equally true for sanctification. Speaking to believers, he says, you are not under the law, you are free. And in saying this, Paul is making the point once again that to be under the law is the very opposite of being a believer under grace, being free, a child of God led by the Spirit. To be under the law is to belong to the old age, to be under grace, not under law, is to belong to the new age, the new age of grace and redemption, the age of the Spirit. The two states, the two ages, are once again shown to be mutually exclusive. Once again, the law is part of the believer's problem, not the solution. Now there are two main ways in which these verses are misread. In the first place, some do not see that Paul was speaking about the law, the entire law. Instead, they think Paul was speaking about the curse of the law, especially the ceremonial law, or the law as a covenant, even though he did not say so. Really? It will not do to say Paul was thinking of the tripart division of the law, but did not spell it out. not spell out such a vital step in the argument? The suggestion could only be made by one whose case is desperate. If this is the best which can be offered in defence of Calvin's third use of the law, when confronted by scripture, not much more need be said. In this way, one of the most glorious of all New Testament statements is watered down, and watered down on the basis of an unbiblical division of the law. This is the first way these verses are misread. Others, however, think Paul was still tackling the first threat to the believer's liberty, namely an attack upon justification. They claim Paul was still saying the believer is not under the law for justification. But as I've shown over and over again, he was not. Justification leading to sanctification. And the fact that neither of them is by the law, this is Paul's theme in Galatians in general, and in Galatians 5, 13 to 18, and on. In particular, walk, do, Lead, fruit, are words to do with sanctification, not justification. In this passage, Paul is making a contrast. Precisely what contrast? Is he speaking, as he was in Galatians 3, of the two ages in the historical sense? You will recall that some misread Paul in Galatians 3 They think that there he was speaking of the personal experience of believers, but he was not. He was speaking of two historical ages, under the law and under grace, the time before Christ and the time after Christ, the age of the law and the age of grace. Here, however, he is speaking of the personal experience of believers and not the two ages. Not surprisingly. Some who go wrong at Galatians 3 also go wrong here. They think Paul was speaking individually in Galatians 3 and of the two ages in Galatians 5, when in fact he was doing the very opposite. There are indeed two great epochs, Law and Grace, but this is not the point of Galatians 5. It is Galatians 3 which deals with the epochs of Law and Grace in the history of the ages. Galatians 5 13-18 deals with the epochs of law and grace in the life of the individual believer let us look at what Paul says to the individual in Galatians 5 there is always a conflict between the flesh and the spirit, he says and in the unregenerate the flesh will always win, verse 17 Oscar Wilde said he could resist anything but temptation and his lifestyle certainly did nothing to contradict his quip. But for you, believer, although you are engaged in a conflict between your flesh and the Spirit, you have the Spirit, and as you walk in the Spirit, the flesh will not defeat you. Verse 16. It cannot defeat you, for if or since you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Verse 18. The Apostle's if does not indicate a doubt. Paul is stating a fact, he's making a case and he means since since you are regenerate you are not under the law this is staggering what is the Apostle saying? just this, in order to overcome the desires of the flesh a man must be free from the law in other words far from the law being the means of sanctification sanctification is only possible to one who is free from it not merely that the law is not the means of sanctification. Freedom from the law is the only means of sanctification. This, I repeat, is a staggering statement, and Paul makes it. Let me remind you of what we learn from Galatians 2.19. In that verse, the apostle moved from justification into sanctification, that I might live to God. What is more, he categorically stated that he died to the law, that in order that I might live to God. As I said at the time, I cannot overstate the importance of this assertion. Paul died to the law in order that he might live to God. In other words, he was asserting that the law neither justifies nor sanctifies, that the believer is not under the law, either for justification or sanctification. The truth is, he was making the point that to live to God, a sinner must die to the law. In short, The law is part of the problem, not the solution. I'm not saying a word against the law. The fault lies with the sinner, not the law. But the believer has to be dead to the law in order to live to God. So much for Galatians 2. And as I pointed out when looking at Galatians 3, 23 to 25, Here in Galatians 5, 13-18, Paul, with his love of wordplay, brilliantly emphasizes the point by his use of the verbal form of pedagogue. Verse 18. His readers and hearers, confronted by his Greek, and not forgetting the earlier illustration, would now make the intended connection. Believers are not being led by the law. They are not being pedagogued by the law but by the spirit Because the age of the law is over for them Believers are free from the law And because they are free from the law They can be sanctified in short in Galatians 2 Galatians 3 and now in Galatians 5 The Apostle has made the same point. Talk about repeating yourself. Praise God for the repetition, I say. Let me set out the Apostle's teaching as succinctly as I can. Believers are not under the law. They must not go under the law. They can only be sanctified because they are not under the law. Because they are not under the law, they have the Spirit. This is how they are to be sanctified. This is how they will be sanctified. This is what Christ died for. But what about the flesh? Of believers, it is said, they all once conducted themselves in the lusts, that is, gratifying the cravings, of their flesh. Ephesians 2.3 What else could they do? Since that which is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3, 6, such behavior is perfectly natural, the very word, and only to be expected. But what a glorious change has taken place. Believers have been born again, born of the Spirit, John 3, verses 3 and 8. Now that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, John 3, verse 6. And the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in the regenerate. Romans 8.11 As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Romans 8.14 Those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law. Galatians 5.18 Sin shall not have dominion over them, for they are not under law, but under grace. Romans 6.14 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Galatians 5 24 These it must be noted are statements Not exhortations. They are facts which are true of believers not duties to be done by them To be led by the Spirit is to be free of the law Liberated from the reign of grace and to have crucified the flesh Duties and encouragements follow of course In light of these facts, the facts he has just spelled out, Paul tells believers the breathtaking truth. Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Walk in the Spirit is a command, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh, is an assertion, a promise. But then comes the consequent exhortation. If since we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Not, please note, let us walk in the law, but let us walk in the Spirit. Let us follow the Spirit's lead, staying in line or step with the Spirit. Here we reach the heart of the matter. Sanctification is not by Calvin's third use of the law, quite the opposite. Calvin could not be more wrong. In order to live a sanctified life, a man has to be delivered from the law. Be no longer under the law, but be under grace and walking in the Spirit. In Christ a man can say, I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. For he has Christ working within him both to will and to do of or for God's good pleasure. Philippians 2 and 4. In addressing the Galatians, Paul was writing against Judaizers, who were trying to get believers under the law, teachers who were promising them vital power in their spiritual experience, if only they would submit to the law, promising that their new life, which had begun with the Spirit, would be brought to maturity by conforming to the law, that the law was the only sure way of knowing how to live the Christian life, the only way to attain it. The apostle totally and categorically rejected the notion this he declared is nothing other than walking in the flesh and not by the spirit have done with it root and branch it is wrong to try to reduce the law and the flesh to mosaic ceremonies the law in Galatians is the whole law in any case Mosaic ceremonies never did produce godliness of life, not even for the Jews. It would be utterly redundant for Paul to tell the Galatians not to go under the ceremonies of the law for sanctification. The fact is, Paul did not compare walking in the Spirit with being under the ceremonies of the law. He contrasted walking in the Spirit with being under the law. These last two are mutually exclusive, not alternatives. Galatians 5.25 does not say that to walk in the Spirit is to keep the law. The law is not even mentioned. In any case, walking in the Spirit and walking under the law are contrasted, even opposed to each other. By the way, the Greek for under the law, Galatians 4.4, is precisely the same as in Galatians 5.18. Christ was under the law, Galatians 4.4. The believer is not under the law, Galatians 5.18. And the law is precisely the same. Whatever law Christ was under, the believer is not under. And that law is the law of Moses, all of it. True, the law of Moses as part of Scripture plays a role in the life of the believer, but even so, the New Testament says far, far more about the role played by the Spirit. The fact is, we are living in the age of the Spirit, under the law of the Spirit of life, which has made us free from the law of sin and death, Romans 8.2. The Spirit not only brings freedom, But his regime is the norm, the pattern, the law, the rule of the new life. He creates, stimulates and rules the believers' new way of living. And how beautifully balanced all this is. For their sanctification, for their victory in their conflict with the flesh, believers are commanded to walk in the Spirit. They have to do it. It is their duty. It is their responsibility. They have to exert themselves to walk in and by the Spirit, resolutely siding with the Spirit against the flesh. It does not just happen. But neither is it just a human effort. The Spirit shows the way and gives the power. It has nothing to do with let go and let God, or any passive doctrine of sanctification. Paul pithily encapsulates it. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Paul's experience and testimony stands as an encouragement to every believer. By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me was not without effect. As for the apostles' work for Christ, as he said, he worked harder than all the rest. That could not be credited to him, yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. That was what did it. The grace of God was the effective power in his life. 1 Corinthians 15 The same goes for every believer. Every believer has a responsibility before God, Every believer has God's grace to move and enable him to fulfill that responsibility. The law never could. It never can fulfill this function. And here in Galatians, Paul expresses it eloquently when he not only speaks of believers having been crucified with Christ, those to whom the world has been crucified, but of their having crucified the flesh. In the former, Paul emphasizes what has happened to them in Christ. In the latter, he stresses their responsibility, participation, and action. And of course, the latter depends on the former. Only the power of Christ could defeat the flesh, but his work enables believers to overcome it. It's too weak to say To walk in the Spirit is the best way to overcome the flesh. It's the only way. And it's the sure way. Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. The negative is doubled and therefore much strengthened. You will assuredly not fulfill the lust of the flesh. To walk in the Spirit and to be led by the Spirit are virtually synonymous. Believers are under the influence of the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit, guided by the Spirit, and enabled to live their life by the grace of the Spirit. How did Paul argue his case? By using the word walk. The Apostle took a Jewish idiom, the language of the Old Testament, and transformed it into walk in the Spirit. And once again, Paul made the choice stark. You can either go over to the Judaizers and live by the law, he said, always checking your life by endless references to laws and statutes, in an underlying spirit of guilt and fear of punishment, a way doomed to failure, or by constantly referring, the verb is present continuous, to the spirit. The latter is the right and only way. You began by the spirit and not by the law. Since you began by the Spirit, you must go on by the Spirit." Galatians 3. In contrast to the unregenerate Jew, who was informed only by the external law, you have a renewed and instructed mind. You have been given the Spirit. You have His law that is Christ's law by His Spirit in your heart, and you delight in it. You have His anointing which teaches you concerning all things. and therefore you know God's will. See also Ephesians 3, 14-21 and Colossians 1, 3-12. Many verses in addition to these. This of course does not mean that the Spirit directly gives the believer all necessary guidance, else why would Paul and the other apostles have spelled out their doctrine and instructions in the Scriptures as they did? In addition to the passage we are looking at, take one further example. Brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God. For you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. Therefore, he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us his Holy Spirit. But concerning brotherly love, you have no need that I should write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another, and indeed you do so. But we urge you, brethren, that you increase more and more. 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 to 12. But the Spirit does more than instruct, far more. He guides and empowers. He gives light and life. Above all, he gives life, and it is life in the spirit, under the spirit, by the spirit, not life in and under the law, which is the way of sanctification for the believer. It is life in the spirit, that life activated by the spirit and calibrated by the whole of the written word, the whole of it, the word rightly nuanced in Christ that will sanctify the believer. not Calvin's third use of the law. And another thing, and it's a matter of immense importance, in saying all this, I am not for a moment remotely teaching sinless perfection, not at all. Sanctification is a process which is never complete in this life. Furthermore, with increased sanctification comes a heightened sensitivity to sin, and a greater perception of one's failure in this regard. Then again, the Christian life is a pilgrimage, indeed a spiritual warfare. Conflict there will be, and skirmishes, even battles maybe, sadly will be lost. No, I am not teaching sinless perfection. but neither am I condoning failure. Nevertheless, in the spiritual warfare, ultimate victory is certain. Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, as we see here in Galatians, through his liberty from the law, in Christ the believer has glory and joy now. This is such an important point of such relevance to this issue in hand. I must come back to it. sanctification by Calvin's whip and bridle, sanctification by the law's pricking stimulus to arouse the sluggish ass from his laziness, is patently at variance with the New Testament position of the believer. Calvin's system, a system of fear and guilt and punishment, is utterly at variance with Paul's words to the Galatians and the tenor of the New Testament in general. the dominant note of the believer's joy and liberty, here and now. In fact, going back to the law, Paul argued, leads to nothing other than a reduced spirituality, a cramped legality. Once again, the law is part of the problem, not the solution. As we go on, I will put before you many other passages of Scripture which show the true way of sanctification, and never is it by the law. It is not based on fear and guilt. The motive and means of holiness are not found in a deterrent which God holds in front of the eyes of His people, or a whip smiting their back, or a goad pricking their side. Paul, as an unbeliever, kicked against the goads. Why would he advocate such a system for believers? Calvin might. Many contemporary Reformed teachers do. Paul did not. Since, as we have seen so clearly taught in the letter to the Galatians, one of the aims of Christ's coming into the world was to deliver those under the law, to redeem those under the law, to release them from the law. It must be wrong to impose the law upon believers. Wrong is tragic and worse. I'm not saying the law is sin, but I am asserting that to impose the law on new covenant men and women is utterly contrary to the gospel. If anyone objects, let them try telling Paul about it in light of his letter to the Galatians. the biblical motive and the means of sanctification, are very different to this enslaving law work based on fear. Believer, when you were regenerated, you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, quite the opposite. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love, and of a sound mind. Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The Spirit is given to a man to take him out of the slavish fear which marked his unregenerate state, never to return to it. If you are a believer, do not allow yourself to be taken back into guilt-ridden bondage. Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ has made you free. And if you are not a believer, look to Christ, and He will set you free. Now all this raises a vital question. Christ has set His people free, free from the law, yes, but free to do what? There are great dangers. unless this teaching is biblically qualified and understood. True, the believer is free from slavery, but he's also responsible for his life. Liberty is not license. Christ has not liberated his people to give them a license for carnal self-indulgence. Consequently, Paul has to make it very clear what kind of life, the life in the spirit is, and what the life in the flesh is. To avoid all misunderstanding, I remind you of the point I made above. A believer has the inward grace of the Spirit to teach him, but he also has the external word to rule him. It is not either or, but both. It is light and life. Paul, of course, answered all these points in the rest of the letter, and copiously elsewhere. Spelling out the new covenant position, I will postpone looking at this conclusion to the Galatians in detail, however, until I have examined the other passages of the New Testament, which deal with the believer and the law. Then, in chapter 16, I will set out the believer's rule. For now, let me precede the Apostle's concluding words. First, the believer's freedom has a negative aspect. He is not free to give the flesh an opportunity. This must not be minimized. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors. We have an obligation, but not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die. As before, the warning passages of Scripture are real. Having laid down this searching truth, Paul then thoroughly worked it out as he moved to the end of his letter to the Galatians. Above all, the believer has the Spirit, is led by the Spirit, and will and must produce the fruit of the Spirit. So declared the Apostle. This must not be written off as it is as wishy-washy, merely some kind of warm feeling. Far from it. There are solid marks and clear evidences of holiness, evidences which can be verified. Paul, please note, used a stronger word for walk in Galatians 5.25 than in Galatians 5.16, employing a word which has the idea of a row, an orderly line or a rule. It describes a movement in a definite line, such as in a military formation or a dance, a choreography. Nothing vague about this, even though it has been dismissed as such. In short, the believer will and must fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6.2 As I say, I will work all this out in chapter 16. But the fact that Paul had to answer the charge of lawlessness, rebut its danger, and devote an extended passage to it, proves yet again that he did indeed teach that the believer is free from the law. No such passage, no such warning, would be required in any book which argued the Reformed view of sanctification by the law. Yet Paul gave the same warning to the Corinthians, Peter had to do the same thing, Jude also. If the Reformed view had been right, the apostles would never have needed to do any such thing. There is no danger of lawlessness arising from teaching which states that the law is the believer's rule. It only arises when the gospel is taught with the freeness the New Testament warrants and demands. Indeed, the fact that such an accusation can be made, that such an accusation ought to be made, is the acid test for all preachers and teachers and their doctrine. Let me personalize it. If nobody can accuse us of antinomianism, then we are not preaching the gospel as it ought to be preached. Either to sinners for their justification, or to believers for their sanctification. In closing this chapter, let me repeat the Apostle's own way of finishing his lecture to the Galatians. It's all here. Bear in mind that although circumcision was at the forefront of the Judaizer's call, Paul had made it abundantly clear to all concerned that it was the whole Lord which was at stake. Chapter 5, verse 3. Having got that well and truly established, this is how he concluded. As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law. But they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything but a new creation. and as many as walk according to this rule. Peace and mercy upon them, and upon the Israel of God. From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. Galatians 6, 12-18 Here's the choice. We go to the law or to the cross. It cannot be both. So which is it? For there is no doubt, the cross of Christ, the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us ask the apostle, how can I be justified? How can I be set free? How can I be sanctified? His answer is always the same. The cross of Christ. The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. And how did he close his letter? Was it, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. first having gone to Moses to be repaired for Christ, and then taken back to Moses to whip you into sanctification. No. As he told the Thessalonians, Paul had only one way of closing all his letters, the salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every letter, so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.