All right, the text says this,
and it has to do with liberty, with the law, and such like. Galatians 5, 1. Stand fast, therefore,
in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I, Paul,
say unto you, that if you are circumcised, Christ shall profit
you nothing. For I testify again to every
man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole
law. Christ is become of none effect
unto you, whosoever you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from
grace. For we through the Spirit wait
for the hope of righteousness by faith, for in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,
but faith which works by love. You did run well. Who did hinder
you that you should not obey the truth? This persuasion comes
not of him that called you, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
I have confidence in you through the Lord that you will be none
otherwise minded, but that he that troubles you shall bear
his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, If I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense
of the cross ceased. I would that they were even cut
off, which trouble you. For brethren, ye have been called
unto liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh
but by love serve one another. Now, verse 11 again, please. I, brethren, if I yet preach
circumcision, as some say that I do, why then am I still being
persecuted by those who believe in and push circumcision? Then is the offense of the cross
ceased. Now, as we know, Paul did not
break this epistle down into chapters and in verses as we
have them in our modern Bible for the sake of convenience and
ease of finding or locating a particular passage of the scripture. I said
that to say this, that there is no change of subject from
chapter 4 and verse 31 to chapter 5 and verse 1. For from that
great allegory in chapter 4 verse 21, Paul makes an application
that believers are free-born children, They are daughters
of the Jerusalem which is above. We are not children of the slave
woman, we are children of the free woman. Hence the exhortation,
chapter 5 and verse 1, stand fast therefore in that liberty
wherewith Christ hath made you free. Notice that his exhortation
runs in both If you would, he exhorts them as he writes unto
them, number one, stand fast in the liberty for which Christ
has freed us by his death upon the cross. Some render it for
freedom did Christ free us, therefore stand fast. It was the purpose
of Christ in dying in our stead. that he might gain liberty, that
he might set us free, that we might be delivered from the bondage
of sin, depravity, and iniquity. So stand fast. Now the second
part of the exhortation is this, be not entangled again with the
yoke of bondage. Linsky, whom I read this week,
renders it, stop enduring again a yoke of slavery, unquote, because
the present imperative is used here in the Greek, and the Galatians
had already begun. They had already started. They
had already gotten into something that they should not, at least
some of them had, under the influence of the Judaizer. Having mentioned
that bondage then, we notice that he clearly sets forth the
sort of bondage which he warns them again. against making Judaism
and circumcision, in particular, a necessary part of salvation
that even unto and upon the Gentiles." takes time here, takes his time
to clearly warn them, warning them of the consequences of a
course of action making circumcision a part of justification. The apostle is very forceful. The second verse, look at it
again. Behold, I, Paul, say unto you,
notice all those words, behold, catch their attention, I, and
then Paul, an apostle of the Lord. Look in the third verse
again. He said, I testify again, as
if to say, mark my word, heed my warning, let there be no misunderstanding
that it is I, Paul, an apostle of the Lord, given the gospel
by revelation as he asserts his authority in that church. Here are the consequences then,
which he lays out, of accepting circumcision. This would be from
the Jewish standpoint who said it was necessary that Gentiles
be circumcised in order to be saved. And Paul, we look at it
only quickly as we go our way, shows the consequences of taking
such a position as that. Look at the second verse and
the last part, if you will. It forfeits any profit from Christ. If you're going to turn to circumcision,
then there is no profit in Christ. Look at the third verse. If one
submits to circumcision as obligatory, then he is a debtor to do the
whole law. By putting himself under the
one part, he has put himself under all of the law. Then look
at verse 4, to seek justification in whole or in part by circumcision
drives one off of the course of grace and takes him back again
under the law. Look at verse 5 then. The hope
of righteousness is through the Spirit by faith. Look at verse 6. In Christ, being
in Christ, circumcision has absolutely no value. It counts for nothing. It has no benefit. Or, as John
Eady, the Scotsman, wrote, circumcision does not create a stronger union
with Christ, it does not excite a lively or hope or confirm a
or give a confirming hold on righteousness." None of those
things come by circumcision. The vital thing Paul says here
is faith and righteousness by and through faith. Then also
in verse 9, in this context, Paul uses the proverb to them
that they were well acquainted with, A little leaven leaveneth
the whole lump. The implication being, insisting
on the abolished rite of circumcision again would sour the whole gospel
of grace. A little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump. Now, I can be of the mind of
those who think that verse 10, the apostle, makes some sort
of a distinction and a contrasting something from the others. wishing
in verse 10 that the troublers would receive the due reward
of their deeds. He desires that they turn back
from the Judaizer to the gospel he had given them, as if to say,
I do not confound you with them, expressing hope that they would,
with this exhortation, turn back and abandon this business of
Judaism that was being brought upon them again. And that brings
us to our text then in verse 11. And there is an answer here
to the charge that Paul was a preacher of circumcision. And this rebuttal
runs in two directions, as we see it in the text. A, against those who level the
charge, the Judaizers, those who charged him falsely. They're
probably right who think that this might have had reference
to Paul having had Timothy circumcised in the sixteenth chapter of the
book of Acts. So they accuse him then of preaching
circumcision, which at one time he had stood so adamantly against. Paul of being a politician is
how they accuse him, saying what people want to hear, telling
this one what he desires to hear, telling one lie in one place
and another lie in another place. to another audience, changing
their message or changing his doctrine from place unto place. That's a great insult to the
apostle Paul, for he never did that. But then, B, he answers
the charge for the sake of those Christian brethren who were troubled
by the accusation against their father in the faith, even Paul. And the one question serves in
both areas. Why, then, am I still persecuted? Now, that's a great question,
and Paul thinks that it suffices to defend himself and disarm
those that question or charge him. Notice the word still. Why am I still? being persecuted. Why does the persecution continue,
that is, if I preach circumcision? If I'm preaching circumcision,
that would pacify the Jew and the circumcision, or rather,
the persecution then would cease. If I preach circumcision, why
am I still being persecuted by the very same one who make the
charge, why has not the enmity ceased? Why has not the enmity
gone away and been abated? Why has it not removed the offense
of the cross? If I am a preacher of circumcision,
Why has the persecution continued, and why is there yet an offense
in the cross? Now, in dealing with this subject
and this text, I propose to you to handle it under two ways like
this. Number one, we must, I believe,
look at the historical context of this passage of Scripture.
That is, the situation that existed at the time that Paul wrote this
letter unto the Galatian assembly concerning the offense of the
cross. to the Jews, who taught that
except the Gentiles receive circumcision and keep the Mosaic law, they
could not be saved." That's in Acts 15 verse 1 and verse 5. To such, the gospel was an offense. A gospel that disregarded, that
cast out circumcision as a necessary part, was an offense. So we look at it in the historical
aspect. Secondly, in the broader sense,
that the cross was, and still is, an offense even if it be
upon different ground than in Paul's time and day. First, the
original situation concerning the Jew, circumcision, and the
gospel of Christ our Lord. They charge Paul with being inconsistent. That's the charge that is brought
against him. possibly to discredit him in
the eyes of the other people, and also to undermine his authority
as a preacher and an apostle, and cause him to lose face with
the people, and they turn on him because of the charges. Now, methinks that it was they
who were inconsistent. Methink it is they who are inconsistent,
who changed their story from place unto place. That is, in
accusing the Apostle Paul. Consider, in Galatians, here
in our text, they said he preaches up circumcision, while in Acts
21 and 21, James tells Paul this, that there were many Jews who
believed and who were zealous for the law who have heard that
you teach Jews who live among the Gentile to turn away and
forsake Moses, even telling them that they ought not to circumcise
their children, nor to walk after the custom." Acts 6 and verse
14, you'll see it again. But in Galatia, when it suited
their purpose, then they turned and accused Paul of preaching
up circumcision. Almost any sound commentator
that you might pull off of the shelf and read, believes that
they were referring to Acts chapter 16, when Paul had Timothy circumcised
for the sake of the Jew and his usefulness in the ministry, to
hide from them his true theology, and win among the Gentiles that
here Timothy would be serviceable unto him. It is important that
we understand the significance and the history of circumcision
unto the Jew and in the Jew mind. That it marked them of old as
being the seed of Abraham. It was the mark in their flesh
that they were the offspring of Abraham. And then they came
to make it to be their covenant status. That if they had it,
they were children of God. And then they made it a cause
of salvation. That if they had it, they stood
well before God. I found a distinction this week
about circumcision in a commentary on a man by the name of William
Perkins, written about 1600, published in Old World English,
Have you ever tried to read that, where an S looks like an F, and
sometimes a U is a V in the old world English, and they spell
country, C-O-U-N-T-R-E-Y. That gives you a little hint
of it. It was given to me by Brother Mike, and I thank him
for that gift. Anyway, it was a distinction
from Perkins that I don't think I had ever really thought about
the way he presented it in his commentary on Galatians. When he wrote this, circumcision
must here be, B-E-E, considered according to the circumstances
of time three ways. See what he's saying? We may
consider circumcision according to the circumstances of time
three ways or three aspects. First of all, from Abraham unto
Christ, circumcision of the Jews in that period, when, as I said,
it was a mark of their fleshly descendancy from Abraham. It was to be had by every Jewish
male, and that on the eighth day, and even upon servants and
proselyte, as circumcision was to be administered to them."
Genesis chapter 17. When the people were settled
in the land of Canaan, and God renewed the covenant of circumcision
with them in Joshua chapter 5 verse 2 through 9, because all that
were born in the wilderness had not had circumcision in the wilderness. And then B, we consider circumcision
from the death of Christ, says Perkin, until about 70 A.D. or the destruction of the Jewish
temple, the end of the Jewish commonwealth when it came with
finality in A.D. 70. It has been called this period,
and Perkins wrote, it was a dead ceremony. Now, we're talking
about from Christ's death and resurrection until 70 A.D. It was a dead ceremony, but was
allowed on commendation as a thing indifferent, and there was no
positive forbidding of it, and no command unto it in that period. Then see, from 70 A.D., or when
the gospel was heard and received by the Gentiles, then, as Perkins
put it, and I'm quoting, It was a deadly ceremony, and it ceased
to be indifferent." After that period of time, it became a deadly
ceremony. one that would take one off of
the grace of God, and was not indifferent any longer, especially
when we consider the opinion which the false teacher had assigned
unto it. Then comes Paul's piercing question. If, as they say, I preach circumcision,
why am I still being persecuted, pounded from place to place,
driven out of one synagogue after another, and even out of one
city and another, stoned and left for dead? Now why would
Paul say such? Well, see the connection. If
I preach circumcision, then the offense of the cross would cease. Tie those two together. If I
but preach circumcision, if I but granted them their circumcision,
it would be the end of the offense of the cross. The preaching of
circumcision would do away, it would abolish, it would remove
the offense of the cross that it was to the Jew in that historical
setting. It would take away the offense
then of the gospel, take away the offense of Christ crucified
and as the only way of salvation. He could put in circumcision
and take out the offense of the cross. I'll say it again. If
he put in circumcision in his preaching, then he could take
out the offense of the cross. In preaching, in hearing of the
Jews, Paul could have saved himself a lot of trouble. He could have
gotten a much better and kinder reception and a larger hearing. If he would but preach circumcision
to those Jews that were gathered, if he would grant the Jews just
this one concession, it could take the offense out of the gospel. Even the offense of the bloody
cross of Christ would be lessened or removed by the admittance
of circumcision. pre-circumcision to the Jew,
and it would change his whole reaction to Christ and the cross
and the gospel and the Christian way. Put Christ and fleshly circumcision
on the equal level, and the Jews then would tolerate the gospel
that Paul was preaching unto them. Here let us admit that
this issue that we're dealing with was unique to the Jew and
unique to that particular time. Only then could circumcision
be the issue. It never was an issue with a
Gentile unless and until the Jews made it an issue with the
Gentiles that were believing. It has not been an issue since. It has not been an issue in Christianity. There is no quarrel in Christianity
now about the right of circumcision. We never hear any preaching today
in under supposed Christian banner who say, except ye be circumcised,
you cannot be saved. It is hardly if at all thought
about or talked about in our day in a religious or Christian
setting. However, let us remember, in
considering this, there is both an issue and there is a principle
that is involved in all of this. The issues may change. The issues
may come and they may go. The issues may revolve as fashions
do, going out and coming in again. But the principle, the principle
ever stays the same in Christianity. Also, the people who raise the
issues may change, and they may challenge the gospel upon different
grounds than one another, but the message of the gospel is
an unchanging and abiding principle, and an abiding offense to whirlings,
to sinners, to religionists, and such like. We should remember
that though Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts chapter 16,
his father being a Greek and his mother a Jewish believer,
but the same Paul steadfastly refused the same circumcision
for his co-laborer, Titus, in Galatians 2, 3 through 5. In the case of Titus, a Gentile,
the principle of the gospel, yea, the truth of the gospel,
was at stake. It was not in the case of Timothy,
and Paul therefore stood his ground. You know, I read, I remember
reading M. R. D. Hahn, where he called Paul
a compromiser in Acts chapter 16. In the 15th chapter of Acts,
they just had said that they're not bound to circumcision. And
then in the next chapter, he's circumcised in Timothy, and Imhran
and others accused him of being a compromiser in what he did
in the case of Timothy. But notice now that Paul speaks
of the offense of the cross. Now, not of the wood of the cross
per se, not of the material out of which the cross was made,
but he means the doctrine, the message, or the preaching of
the cross. First Corinthians 1 and verse
18, there Christ crucified upon it At times it is called also
the tree. They nailed Him to a tree. Acts 5.30, Acts 10 and verse
39, Galatians 3.13, 1 Peter 2 and 24, He bare our sins in His own
body upon the tree. The cross, therefore, is therefore
a reference to the atoning, sacrificial death which Christ died upon
the cross. And the offense of the cross
is that view and reaction and opinion of the Jews concerning
his death as the only means of salvation. The only way of being
saved, Paul preached, was by the cross and the death of the
Lord. And while Paul's only object
of glory was the cross. He said in Galatians 6 and 14,
God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of Christ our
Lord. The only thing in which Paul
gloried, the only thing in which Paul boasted was the cross, that
is, the death of the Savior, that Galatians 6, 13, while some
push circumcision, that they may glory in your flesh. Paul answered, God forbid that
I should glory, may I never gloat, may I never boast except in the
cross. And in the last act of verse
14, he tells why he would only glory, exult, rejoice, joy, boast
in the cross. He says that it was by the cross
that the world was crucified to me, and I unto the world. I boast in the cross because
in the cross the world was crucified to me and I reciprocally unto
it." In other words, as in Galatians 2 and verse 20, I am crucified
with Christ. In him he had died to sin through
the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul and the world were dead
one unto another by virtue of the cross. And as one exegete
put it, Christ's cross affected that separation. This double
death was affected by Christ's death on the cross, and even
as the songwriter wrote these words we sometimes sing, content
to let the world go by, to know no gain or loss, my sinful self,
my only shame, my glory, all the cross." But to the Jews,
Christ crucified was a stumbling block, 1 Corinthians 1, 23. Isaiah 8 and 14 had predicted
it, and Peter writes it up in 1 Peter chapter 2 and verse 8. I lay in Zion a stumbling block. Consider this quote from John
Eady, the Scotch Calvinist, at Galatians 6 and verse 14. I've copied it verbatim. Quote,
The offense of the cross is the offense which the Jews took at
the idea of salvation only by the crucified one. Salvation
only by the blood of the cross. was a very sore stumbling block
to their national pride and an open affront to their cherished
theology. And as one died on the cross,
had been rejected by their nation as a blasphemer and condemned
to crucifixion." And this, thereby, is the offense of the cross. Again, E. D. Wright, to speak
of the instrument of shame and of agony as the only means of
salvation inflamed their bitterish prejudices and shaped them under
unscrupulous and malignant hostility against Paul and the gospel,
unquote. And that hostility was vented
through or against the gospel. Those that preached it, and I
dare say it, that Jewish hostility toward Christ and toward the
gospel as the only Messiah and only way of salvation, is still
to this hour an offense unto the Jew. However, the hostility
and the offense of the cross is not by any means confined
to that generation of Jews. Consider the Greeks in Paul's
day and their view of Christ crucified upon a cross. 1 Corinthians 1 and 23, to the
Greeks it was foolishness, that one could die and save others,
that one could be put to death and be the savior of others was
foolishness unto them. That as the Greeks gloried in
their nationality and their national ancestry, so the Greeks gloried
in their wisdom and in their learning. and in their wisdom
and learning It seemed foolish to them that one put to death
in such a horrible way would be able to give life unto others. And yet, says Paul, the message
of the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing. 1 Corinthians 1 and verse 18. It's foolish to those who are
perishing who are not believers, who are not quickened, who are
not converted. who do not believe a bone cry. Now I'd like it come closer.
to our day and our time, many of those who answer unto Christian,
and yet is the cross still an offense unto them today. The true preaching of the gospel
without watering it down or sweetening it up is an offense. The preaching of the gospel,
the death of the atonement of Christ, in all of its aspects
is an offense to many who parade under the banner of Christianity."
Now we remember, Paul could have easily and quickly removed the
offense of the Jews toward the cross and the gospel simply by
bringing in circumcision to stand by Christ as he preached, but
he refused because it would be a violation of the gospel and
a corruption of the gospel, the truth as it is in Jesus Christ
our Lord. He would have gained a lot more
Jews. He'd have had a lot friendlier audience. He'd have had a lot
bigger crowds. He might have been voted Man
of the Year at some time. but he valued the gospel above
all the popularity and honor that men can bestow upon one. He valued the truth of the gospel
above all human comforts and would not corrupt the gospel
at all. Now, I said today there are some,
I believe, who have taken the offense out of the gospel And
I want to speak concerning them. Let us speak a bit of the Arminian,
what we call the Arminian section of Christendom. Of course, it
can be broken down into different categories. All Arminian do not
stand on the same ground. There are those that are evangelical. There are those that are liberal.
There are those that are formalistic. Some are just plain humanists. There is much of Christianity
today, what's called Christianity, that is humanism. Many are apostates
whose damnation is not asleep. All of them have taken the offense
out of the cross of our Lord. They've done away with the things
that are offensive to the natural man, and they preach a little
sugar-coated message that has little in it to offend any hearer. For consider, they preach a watered-down
version of depravity. That's the first thing that they
must do, that people are just barely barely bad enough to qualify
to need to be saved as a sinner. They do not declare the full
truth of original sin, but have invented a so-called age of accountability
to avoid telling the state of all by nature as we come corrupt
from the womb. Nor do they preach the total
inability of all to believe. Jesus did. He said, you can't
come to me unless the Father draw me. No man can come unless
he's taught of the Father. No man can come except to be
given unto him of the Father. And they preach what Stanley
Gower, an old-timer, called the two rotten pillars of Arminianism,
and that would be the universal love of God and the universal
atonement of Christ, whereby they tell sinners God loves you
even if you go to hell. Christ died for you even if you
never accepted and perish in hell. God loves those in hell. and that Christ died as much
for them as he did for those that are now in heaven. These
two things are what Stanley Gower called, quote, the fabric of
Arminianism, unquote, which he then called an egg of old Pelagianism. These are the two wobbly, wobbly
legs upon which Arminianism does attempt to stand and even walk. In all their pulpits, in every
place there can be heard, God loves you all and Christ died
for you all, even if you're never saved, even if you go to hell,
even if you perish forever. One of their great concessions
is free will. Their great concession is free
will. It stands about as high in the
estimation of the Arminian as circumcision did in the eyes
of those Jews of old. It must be given place. It must be admitted into their
preaching of the gospel. And they say, except it be joined
with the holy blood of Christ then great offense is taken if
man loses his supposed free will, and they vent their anger against
none freewill preaching or non-freewill gospel. A bad stigma upon what
the Arminian passes off as the gospel is the fact that it is
so popular with so many in so many places. This is a telling
thing that that kind of gospel is so popular that thousands
upon thousands will gather and listen to it, there is no offense
in it. We judge it, however, by the
same rule of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in Luke 16 and verse
15. That which is highly esteemed
among men is an abomination in the sight of God." Now, our Lord
said that. That which is highly esteemed
among men is an abomination to God. You watch where the masses
flock. You listen to what they hear,
and you will see that it is true. Somebody called this, John Owens
called this, this stout idol of free will. He said, Woe be
unto us. If when God visits, our will
be not agreeable. Another likened it to the god
Dagon, who fell down before the Ark of the Covenant of the Almighty
God. That which is highly esteemed
among men is an abomination to God. So we say, what is to offend
in the Armenian gospel? Where is there anything to offend? It's all up to you and your free
will, whether or not you will be saved. God can't will to save
you apart from your free will, and they will raise a great,
hurly-burly, as did the worshippers of the goddess Diana, whom they
believed fell down from heaven. when they saw that she was destroyed. One thing highly offensive to
these that I mentioned is the sovereignty of God. And if you
want an example of that, you look at Luke 4.25-27. When Christ spoke there of the
sovereign actings of God, the people became so angry that they
gnashed their teeth at our Lord when He talked about two sovereign
incidents in the history of Israel. Luke 4, 25-27. The Armenians, and many today,
have done their best to take all of the sting out of the Gospel. To take all of the offense and
portray Jesus as the nicest fellow you would ever want to meet,
and the dearest friend that you could ever make. And that sort
of sentimental maul and sentimentality is what we're hearing about today. And as I say, clocking to it. are the thousands. If one of
those guys with 10,000 people began truly and really to preach
the gospel, pretty soon they could meet in a phone booth.
And we know that's true, and they know it's true. But the
offense of the cross is there because we're depraved. Because
it's the only way we can be saved. Because we must humble ourselves.
We must seek the Lord. We must beg for His mercy. He
must save us or we won't be saved. The offense of the cross. And
then when one believes all that, the cross is no longer offensive. The cross is a blessing. It is
the power of God to them that are being saved, said Paul.