Original Meaning

PAUL’S CALL FOR freedom in verse 1 is the essence of his message to the Galatians. The purpose of Christ’s work was to set Jews free from the curse of the law and to allow Gentiles to enjoy the same liberation by breaking their chains to disobedience and sin. No words can overstate the significance that the notion “freedom” has in this letter

In the overall structure of Galatians our passage begins a major section. In his first major section (1:10–2:21), Paul has attempted to prove the legitimacy of his message by demonstrating his independence, while his second section (chaps. 3–4) had the same proof in mind—using theological arguments. In this final section (5:1–6:10), Paul applies his message to the situation of the Galatians. They had been infected by a virus that contended one was not accepted by God until one had not only surrendered to Jesus Christ but also to Moses’ law. Paul’s inoculation contains the antidote: when one turns to Jesus Christ, one turns away from Moses and begins living under the dominion of Christ and the Spirit, whom the Father has sent into one’s heart. Those who are of Christ, Paul argues, are free from the law.

It should be pointed out that chapters 5–6 are not tacked onto a polemical treatise by Paul with no apparent connections.1 While it is true that chapters 1–4 emphasize the problem of Mosaic legalism and chapters 5–6 emphasize not using freedom as an excuse for sin, there is more connection than meets the eye. The issue from cover to cover in Galatians is twofold: Who are the true people of God (Israel or the church) and how should they govern their lives (by obeying Moses or by following the Spirit)? Paul contends for “church” and “following the Spirit.” This last conclusion had created problems for his Judaizing opponents, and their charge was surely that Paul, in arguing that God’s people should follow the Spirit and not follow the law, did not give the Galatians adequate guidance. They questioned Paul’s essential view of Christian ethics and wondered if the Spirit was sufficient and adequate for moral guidance and for fighting off the “flesh.” Paul wards off this very problem: while Christians are to live in the Spirit and not under the law, their lifestyle should be holier than those in Judaism and more loving because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. To return to our analogy, those who work on computers should, he argues, be more effective than those who hammer away on manual typewriters.

This last section of Galatians begins with a thesis statement (v. 1), and then Paul applies that thesis of freedom to several different issues: (1) circumcision (vv. 2–12), (2) Christian liberty (vv. 13–15), (3) flesh and the Spirit (vv. 16–26), (4) bearing burdens (6:1–5), (5) sharing (v. 6), (6) sowing (v. 7), and (7) doing good (vv. 8–12). In this chapter of our commentary, we will look at the thesis (5:1) and its application to the practice of circumcision (vv. 2–12). Our next section will look at the second and third issues.

The Thesis: Free at Last (5:1)

THIS THESIS HAS two elements: the statement of freedom (v. 1a) and the implication of freedom (v. 1b). In other words, you are free; therefore, do not get caught up in the Mosaic law.

The Greek words of this verse are more potent than the NIV’s attempt to render it in English. Following the Greek word order, we translate woodenly: “For freedom Christ set you free.” There are only four words in Greek: (in order) “freedom,” “you,” “Christ,” and “set free.” The first and last, the two places of a Greek sentence where emphasis can be found, are concerned with freedom—one a noun and the other a verb. The verb is in the aorist tense, which tells us not when or how they were set free, but that they were set free. His main focus is with the fact of their being free at last.

Everything we understand in this passage, and ultimately everything we “take home” from Galatians, hinges on our ability to perceive what the term freedom means in this letter. As H. D. Betz has said: “As a result … ‘freedom’ is the central theological concept which sums up the Christian’s situation before God as well as in this world. It is the basic concept underlying Paul’s argument throughout the letter.”2 So we turn to a study of freedom in Galatians and in Paul’s letters.3

First, we should observe that “being free” is a relationship with God: in the presence of God we are “free” from the curse of the law (cf. 3:10–14; 5:1, 13) and a “sin status” (Rom. 6:18, 20, 22; 8:2) so that we can live as his “free children” (Gal. 4:21–31). Second, “being free” is the result of the death of Jesus Christ: we were captive to sin and the law, but Christ’s death redeemed us from the curse of the law (2:4; 3:13; 5:1; cf. John 8:36). The language of “freedom” is tied into the language of “redemption” (cf. 1:4; 3:13; 4:5).4 Third, “being free” is life in the Spirit of God: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). These three ideas are put together later by Paul in Romans 8:2: “because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death.” We get nowhere in talking about freedom until we comprehend that it is through and through a work of God in our lives through Christ Jesus and in the Holy Spirit. Freedom is not being turned free to be whatever we want (i.e., egocentrism); nor is it some kind of “self-discovery” or “self-authentication” (that, too, is egocentrism); rather, it is being incorporated into the life of God, which he mediates to us through Christ and allows us to enjoy in the Spirit.

These first three ideas about freedom may be called the “theological dimension” of freedom.5 We now turn to the “human dimensions.” Fourth, there is a polemical dimension to freedom. Freedom is something that Christians know about, that Christians enjoy, that Christians experience, and that the Judaizers have not known, and cannot know, until they give up their hold on the law of Moses (2:4; 4:21–31; 5:1). This is a major emphasis of Galatians. The Judaizers had come into the Galatian scene and preached the revelation of God through Moses, and they were arguing that the Galatian Christians had to submit to the law of Moses to perfect their relationship with God. Paul returns the volley with pace: the law of Moses was for a limited time (until Christ) and for a limited purpose (to reveal sin); therefore, the Galatians must not submit to the law. Instead, they must surrender to Christ and live in the Spirit. This makes them “mature sons” (3:26–4:7) who have the Spirit (4:7) and who can live in freedom of adults. The freedom of an adult implies that they no longer have to live under the tutelage of a supervisor (4:1–7). Thus, this freedom in Galatians has a decided polemical slant: it is something the Judaizers are trying to steal.

Fifth, we need to observe in Paul that “being free” is personal and existential in the sense of being liberated to be what God wants us to be and to do what God wants us to do. This category is slightly modern, but I think this is what Paul is getting at.6 He teaches that freedom in Christ is being set free from the power of sin and death (Rom. 6:7, 18, 22; 8:2). This idea of “sin” is the bondage to sin that sinners find shackled around their wills and consciences. This shackle has been broken, and it can only be described as personally liberating—liberating the person to do what God wants. In 5:16–26 we find a description of what happens to a person’s inner life (and outer relations) when the Spirit takes charge. I believe this is the “to be” of our category. “Being free” is being set free “to be” what God wants us to be. While the law is one thing that tethers us to our sinful nature, sinners are also shackled to sin by spiritual forces beyond their control; “being free” involves breaking this shackle as well (Eph. 6:10–18; Col. 2:15). In general, we might say that “being free” is the liberation of a person’s spirit from everything that shackles it to sin and ugliness; “being free” is the liberation of a person’s spirit to do what God wants, to be what God wants, and to enjoy the life God gives us on this earth.

But, paradoxically, this freedom from is at the same time a freedom for and a liberation to. One is not set free to do whatever one wants. Rather, one is set free to do what is right and to be what one ought to be. In the Christian sense of freedom there are definite limitations. The great German pastor, Helmut Thielike, states this sharply when he says that “real freedom, on the other hand—the freedom ‘to become what one should’—must be defined as a definite form of bondage or obligation, in a word, as what one should do. Real freedom is a bondage and nothing else.”7 Thus, those who have been set free have become slaves of Christ (1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:6), God (Rom. 6:22), and righteousness (v. 18).

Finally, “being free” has social implications. Those who have been set free by God, through Christ, and in the Spirit are those who live out this life of freedom by loving others (Gal 5:6, 13–15) and by developing relationships to others that are marked by such things as kindness and goodness (vv. 22–24). This freedom, I believe, is what supports the conclusion of Paul that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female (3:28): those who live in freedom have learned to neglect the barriers that social conventions have taught us in order that we can pursue God’s will (see also 1 Cor. 9:19–23). While it is clear from Paul’s letters and life that Paul did not apparently have a political agenda in his idea of freedom, it seems only reasonable that what he believed to be true in one’s relationship with God and others (freedom) would begin to work itself out in how Christians saw their relationship to the wider world. Thus, I am of the view that the modern concepts of “freedom,” “civil rights,” and “liberty” are deeply indebted to the Pauline notion of freedom and are, in one way or another, an extension of that concept. Those who have been set free want freedom to obtain for all dimensions of life.

In short, for Paul “freedom” is the very heart of the gospel: God sets us free through Christ and in the Spirit, so that we can love God and others. E. J. Epp has described the comprehensiveness of freedom in Paul’s thought admirably:

The implications of this Christian freedom as Paul develops it are vast and far-reaching, but essentially he sees freedom as a reality effected in and through the Christ-event, which has broken the power of sin and neutralized the individual hostility against God; which at the same time has covered the guilt and stain of sin and erased the past; which has crushed all enslavement to self, to religious convention, to the present powers of evil, and to cosmic forces; and which has triumphed over every force that dominates humankind, including human mortality itself. But that is only one side of the Pauline coin—the “freedom from what?” side; there is also the significant “freedom for what?” side, and this many-faceted emphasis in Paul, though it can be simply stated, is infinitely complex in its outworking: a Christian is now free to obey God in a radical fashion by serving his fellow human beings in selfless love.8

The implication of Christ setting us free is the negative side of the letter of Galatians: “Do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (v. 1b). This refers either (1) to Jewish Christians once again falling under the law of Moses as the governor of life, or (2) to Gentile Christians who have been set free in Christ from one form of slavery (to sin as pagans) and who are now turning to another form of slavery (to Judaism without Christ). The evidence of 4:8–9 seems to favor the second interpretation. What we learn from Paul’s comment here is that freedom must be retained, protected from contamination, and renewed at all times.

Application of Thesis to Circumcision (vv. 2–12)

PAUL NOW APPLIES his thesis of the Christian being a truly free person to the issue of circumcision, the most blatant issue facing the Galatians. Will they follow Paul’s “law-free” gospel or will they succumb to the teaching of the Judaizers, which combined the gospel of Jesus Christ with the gospel of Moses? He begins with an assertion (v. 2) and then explains it (vv. 3–6). After this he applies his message of freedom to the Galatians (vv. 7–12).

The assertion (v. 2) Because he is the apostle (1:1), Paul says “Mark my words! I, Paul….” Two points in his words need to be addressed: what do “let yourselves be circumcised” and “Christ will be of no value” mean?

The expression “let yourselves be circumcised” does not simply refer to the rite of circumcision being performed on a Jewish or Gentile male. Paul will say in verse 6 that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.” To Paul neither of these matters. But here he seems to contend that circumcision does matter. Why? To begin with, Paul uses the middle voice here, expressing the notion of “submitting oneself to the rite in a personal way.” But simply being circumcised is not the issue. Rather, it is their reason for circumcision that provokes Paul. If the Galatians go ahead with circumcision because of the influence of the Judaizers, they will be confessing, in the act of submitting to the rite (hence the middle voice), that they think Christ is insufficient, that the Spirit is not a good guide for living, that Moses needs to be obeyed for acceptance with God, and that one needs to become a Jew to become a child of God. This is what Paul reacts to in our letter—not circumcision per se, but to circumcision when done as a confession of faith in the Mosaic law and the superiority of the Jewish nation (cf. Rom. 2:25).

So Paul spells out the ramifications: “Christ will be of no value.” As in 2:21 where Paul stated that if a proper standing with God came as a result of obeying the law, then Christ’s coming was useless, so now: if they confess their faith in Moses through being circumcised, then Christ has no value for them. That is to say, Christ will not deliver them from the present evil age (1:4) or from the curse of the law (3:13), nor will they become children of Abraham’s promise for those who believe (3:6–9, 19–25; 3:26–4:7).

The explanation (vv. 3–6) Paul now needs to back up a bit and explain what he means by “Christ will be of no value.” He makes three points: if they go to the law now, (1) they will be obliged to do the whole law, (2) they will be separated from Christ and grace, and (3) they will miss what really counts: faith.

(1) They will be obligated to do the whole law (v. 3). “Again” refers to the assertion of v. 2, not to some previous statement Paul had made regarding the law. In opting for the law of Moses the Galatians would become “obligators” to the entire law. He is making a threat: assuming the law means one must keep the whole law, and that means eliminating Christ.9 This expression is no different than the other terms Paul has used for those who are “under the law”: they are in bondage (2:4; 4:1–7; 5:1), they are under a curse (3:10–14), they are enclosed (3:22–23), they are under sin (3:22), they are under a pedagogue (3:24), they are under the elementary principles (4:3, 9), and they become nothing more than Ishmaels (4:21–31). The foundation for his point here is historical (the law pertains to a previous era, the “manual typewriter age”), social (the Jewish nation is not the sole place of God’s work), and hermeneutical (the law when properly understood does not bring acceptance with God). They become debtors to the whole law, and that means condemnation because that is only what the law can do.

I doubt very much that Paul means to say that if they opted for the law, they had to do it all perfectly (and if they did it would bring them acceptance). No Jew believed that Jews had to be sinless in order to be acceptable to God. Rather, the law itself provided for those who did not live it properly (the atonement system). Nor do we have other evidence in Galatians that Paul thought Jews had to obey the law flawlessly to be acceptable to God. What we find in Galatians is that opting for the law is a misunderstanding of what the law was supposed to do (3:19–25)—a choice to live in an inferior era under an inferior system and a choice to think that God’s work was still nationalistic. Thus, it seems to me likely that “obligated” means “cursed,” for that is all the law can do for a person (3:19–25).

(2) They will be separated from Christ and grace (v. 4). Paul’s point about “obligation” to the law is now restated. That this is a restatement shows that the traditional view of verse 3 is inaccurate. This restatement simply contends that those who opt10 for the law’s system opt out of the Christ system or the grace system. Put differently, they are choosing another way of becoming accepted by God, and the one they are choosing (the law of Moses) will not do the job. So the issue is which system are they relying upon: how is a person accepted by God and how shall people live as God’s people?

Verse 4 brings up a sensitive issue for many. Is Paul saying here that in being alienated from Christ and in falling “away from grace” these Galatians converts have lost their salvation? First, I want to say that Paul is not thinking in individual categories here. Rather, he is thinking in terms of systems: the system of the law of Moses will bring a curse and not acceptance with God; the system of Christ or grace will bring acceptance with God. Second, the expressions are identical: being alienated from Christ is identical to falling away from grace. Third, in making these two points, we inevitably raise the issue of losing one’s salvation. I do admit that, though the verse is not concerned directly with this issue, it certainly does arise the moment one thinks of the person who does opt for circumcision. What are the implications of this verse for that decision?

No interpreter of the Bible worthy of the term contends for a viewpoint on this important topic by appealing simply to one verse (e.g., v. 4 here). Such a topic requires an exhaustive analysis of two topics in the Bible: God’s protection of his people and human responsibility before God. The person must study not only passages on assurance (e.g., Rom. 5:1; 8:28–39; 1 Cor. 1:8–9; 2 Cor. 5:5) but also passages that seem to imply a possibility of falling away (1 Cor. 9:27; Gal 5:4; Col. 1:21–23; Heb. 6:4–6; 10:19–39).11

For those who are of the view that one cannot lose salvation (Calvinist view), verse 4 describes a person who has never been fully committed to Christ or who has never experienced genuine, saving faith.12 For those who are of the view that one can lose salvation (Arminian view), this verse describes a Galatian convert to Christ who, if he or she opts for the law of Moses, loses his or her relationship to God in Christ and therefore forfeits salvation.13 I believe the overall teaching of the New Testament assumes that Christians will persevere; there are numerous utterances of the assurance that they can have of their final destiny. But I am also of the view that there are enough “terrifying” passages to make one think apostasy is a real possibility and that in the case of apostasy one can “forfeit one’s salvation.”14 I wish, however, to make a theological and a pastoral remark. Theologically, I believe the only sin that can sever a Christian’s relationship to God through Christ is the sin of apostasy. Apostasy is a violent act on the part of a fading Christian who denounces his or her relationship to Christ and refuses to submit to God’s will. Such an act is not haphazard or unconscious; it is intentional and known, and the one who makes such a decision vaunts in it. Pastorally speaking, I am fully persuaded that the person who wonders if he or she has committed this sin has not committed it. The one who has apostatized knows it and proudly glories in it.

(3) They will miss what really counts: faith (vv. 5–6). If the Galatian converts opt for the law of Moses and express that choice by personally undergoing circumcision, they will miss out on what really matters: the faith they previously exhibited (3:1–5). Paul assumes here the conclusions to his first argument: from first to last their experiences showed that everything good came as a result of faith, not as a result of observing the law. The Galatians, Paul warns, will be cursed because it is “by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness15 for which we hope.” What “counts is faith”; circumcision is neither here nor there (cf. 6:15; 1 Cor 7:18–19). And this faith is found “expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:6)—the topic Paul addresses in verses 13–15.

It has been said that verses 5–6 are a masterful summary of Paul’s whole letter. I agree. Here we find (1) faith, (2) the Spirit of God, (3) justification, (4) future hope, (5) love, and (6) the polemics against circumcision. This is Galatians.

The application (vv. 7–12) These verses are not tightly organized. Instead, Paul juts in one direction and then in another. He summarizes his theology and ethics as well as his pastoral exhortations.

Using a metaphor from the world of track and field, Paul wonders over whoever has “cut in on” the Galatians and thereby kept them from the successful run of “obeying the truth” (v. 7). Ancient runners did not run around an oval track in lanes as in our day; instead, there was a post at a set distance away and they ran to that post and back. If a runner “cut in” on another runner, especially in the final few yards before the post, that forced the second runner to trip or slow down.16 Paul likens the Judaizer’s activities to such unsportsmanlike activity: they were cutting in on the Galatian’s progress toward their final goal and slowing them down. Although Paul asks “who,” he knows who they are and needs no answer (cf. 3:1).

Next Paul evaluates this kind of activity (vv. 8–9), stating that it does not come from God and that just a little of it will cause large problems. Once again Paul ties in the messenger to the one who sends the messenger (cf. 1:1; Matt. 10:40–42): because the Judaizers’ message is not from God (as Paul’s is), such activity is not from God.

We then see Paul’s confidence expressed pastorally (v. 10a): “I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view.” He would probably forgive us for asking if this is more rhetorical and pastoral than it is accurate. Paul has expressed on several occasions grave concern over the Galatians, but here he seems to revert to another view of them: he thinks they will listen to him, forget the Judaizers, and continue in the way of Christ and the Spirit. I am of the view that, while Paul had confidence in his readers, when he pondered the problems from other angles, he lost that confidence. Thus, this statement is probably strategic in his entire letter: he becomes positive in order to help them make a good decision.17

His confidence in the Galatians means that Paul can warn the Judaizers about what will eventually come about: final judgment18 (v. 10b). Most commentators observe that, though Paul uses a singular (“whoever he may be”), such a singular is “generic” and there are more than one person involved (see 1:7; 5:12).

Without signal, Paul suddenly responds to one of the criticisms the Judaizers have been making (v. 11): that is, “if I am still19 preaching circumcision” only makes sense if the Judaizers were contending that Paul did demand circumcision. How this was taking place we can only surmise. My guess is that the Judaizers contended that, though Paul did not demand circumcision while he was with the Galatians, he would have done so had he been able to stay longer and spend more time teaching them the “whole counsel of God.” Then he would have gotten to the necessity of obeying the law. Thus, they must have contended that Paul’s message was as nationalistic as theirs; it just took Paul longer to get there. Their job, then, was simply to clean up after Paul and make sure that everything was put in order.

Paul’s response includes his oft-made assumption: those who are persecuted are right (see comments on 4:21–31). And, since he is being persecuted by the Jews, he must be right. If he were preaching circumcision, the cross of Christ would be unnecessary (2:21; 5:2). That “offense,” he says, has not been removed, and that is why I am being persecuted. Paul “cuts off” any possibility that he has ever preached circumcision; for him the gospel and circumcision are incompatible alternatives to defining the people of God.

Finally, Paul sarcastically urges the Judaizers to go the whole way (v. 12). If they are going to get involved with this purifying act of circumcision, they ought to go the whole way, become eunuchs, and end the matter there! One scholar has wryly described some of Paul’s comments in verses 1–12 as “Paul’s cutting remarks”: the Judaizers are concerned with “cutting around” (the literal meaning of the Greek word for circumcision), while his remarks about “cutting in” on runners can now be applied to his more sarcastic remarks about “cutting off” in verse 12.20 Classing the Judaizers with eunuchs is a way of discrediting and disparaging them. Those who are eunuchs are “cut off” from the Jewish people (Deut. 23:1). Is Paul hoping for their exclusion?

On this sour note Paul ends his first application of his main point: being in Christ is living in freedom. Living in freedom means not being caught up in the Mosaic law that demanded circumcision.

Bridging Contexts

THERE IS MUCH to apply here, too much. We have combined Paul’s marvelous statement on freedom (v. 1) with his first application (vv. 2–12). While his thesis statement is concerned with one idea, freedom, the application section brings up several paths along which we could travel looking for applications. We could talk about analogies to circumcision, exploring analogies that are not only ritual but have similar symbolic value: an entry rite that demonstrates one’s confession and a group’s view of how one is accepted by God (baptism, walking down the aisle, raising one’s hand in a service, etc.). We could also examine the implications of adopting a system other than Christ or explore analogies to the Galatian apostasy. We could find methods of opponents who seek to “cut in on us” and how infecting such methods can be for a church. We could even seek for applications through following Paul’s method of responding to his opponents. Thus, does verse 12 justify sarcasm? While each of these can be fruitful for a study of this passage, I will focus on freedom since it is the thrust of Paul’s letter and is the foundation for the applications that follow. So to freedom we now turn.

Before we can apply the message of freedom to our lives, we must understand what Paul was getting at and how it is defined or understood in our world. I begin with the latter,21 surveying three notions of freedom in our society: individual freedom, social freedom, and personal psychological freedom. I do not pretend that these three senses are exhaustive nor that they are mutually exclusive. Those who pursue “individual” freedom may have been turned on to “psychological” freedom too. But they are typical of how our culture thinks of itself and what kinds of ideas it brings up when asked about freedom.

I mentioned previously that young adults must feel a tremendous relief when they leave home, if that home was marked by a certain overconcern on the part of the parents. One thing these children feel is “freedom.” They now feel free from their parents’ rules and regulations; they no longer have a curfew, no longer have to be screened on their phone calls, no longer have to ask permission about where to go and with whom. They can do what they want and when they want to. They can do anything they want to. This is how many college students (or young adults who leave home) define freedom. For these people freedom means an absolute control of one’s life, an individual freedom. In most cases, it is no different than simple egocentrism or narcissism.

I hasten to add that this form of freedom is not just for young adults. Robert Bellah’s team of scholars has examined the problem of individualism in American society at a much broader level. Especially adults in our society are caught up in the myth of the individual: the individual is the main form of reality. Individualism, it is argued, developed from both a biblical and a civic responsibility to others. But the erosion of both of these moorings has turned the Western individual loose. Bellah and others are now arguing (properly I think) that such an individualism “also weakens the very meanings that give content and substance to the ideal of individual dignity.” He continues, “We thus face a profound impasse. Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable….”22 For these people, freedom is “doing what I want,” and it is “finding oneself.”

Put differently, it is independence, autonomy, and personal sovereignty. Theologically, such a definition of one’s personal ambition smells of profound sinfulness. This view of life defines freedom as the absence of limitations and the presence of self-sufficiency and power. Mortimer Adler asks, however, “The real question here seems to be a metaphysical one. Can any finite thing be absolutely independent?” And he goes on to say that “God has the freedom of autonomy which cannot belong to finite things.”23 He has it right. What this kind of freedom often results in is nothing less than human pride and the attempt to make oneself like God by presuming that one can become absolutely independent, self-sufficient, and autonomous.

One manifestation of such an individualism is the pursuit of “financial independence,” which is often nothing more than an economic expression of one’s desire to be unrelated to the rest of society and the demonstration to the rest of the world (which is rarely watching anyway) that one is successful. In all this, the language of duty to one’s fellow human being or the language of duty to God’s will have no capacity to speak to a person who finds freedom only in doing what one wants or in finding oneself. This kind of individualism is creating and determining one’s destiny; hence, the typical Western adult is involved in a moral, social, and religious breakdown.

Bellah, after surveying the aspirations of several people whom he examined in his social survey, sums it all up:

Freedom is perhaps the most resonant, deeply held American value. In some ways, it defines the good in both personal and political life. Yet freedom turns out to mean being left alone by others, not having other people’s values, ideas, or styles of life forced upon one, being free of arbitrary authority in work, family, and political life. What it is that one might do with that freedom is much more difficult for Americans to define.

He concludes, “In some sense … freedom to be left alone is a freedom that implies being alone.”24

For others, “freedom” means the breaking down of social structures that are perceived to be oppressive or obstacles to equality and justice. These are good goals to have, and freedom surely involves the tearing down of social injustices.25 There are many politicians whose sole goal in life is this kind of freedom, and we should applaud their efforts on our behalf. Such obstacles naturally include environmental issues that foster tension in communities, racial prejudices that determine public policies, sexual discrimination that influences pay scales, and international imperialism that can keep some countries from development or force weaker nations down on the economic ladder. Such injustices need to be opposed, and the work for freedom in these areas is altogether good.

But there often comes an imbalance. The struggle for social justice is, for many, the struggle of God against demonic powers, and the establishment of social justice is seen as God’s salvation. This struggle can take place in social realms, racial realms, and sexual realms; and each is a struggle. The most eloquent, and frequently referred to, spokesman for this “liberation theology” is Gustavo Gutierrez. This Latin American scholar argued that there were three levels of liberation: the social aspiration of oppressed people, the human aspiration of developing a new man and a different society, and the spiritual aspiration of being set free from sin through Christ. He goes further: “This is not a matter of three parallel or chronologically successive processes, however. There are three levels of meaning of a single, complex process, which finds its deepest sense and its full realization in the saving work of Christ.”26 Few readers, I would guess, could disagree with this. But the problem is that few of the practitioners of Gutierrez put to work the importance of the “deepest sense” and in its place equate the social and human processes with the spiritual process. While social freedom is certainly an aspect of the Pauline notion of freedom, it is not the totality, and for liberation theologians and activists the concept of freedom is far too materialistic to embrace the fullness of the biblical variety of evidence.

Yet another perception of freedom is highly individualistic: the freedom of self-actualization.27 This may involve freedom from conformity to family expectations and the status quo, from some rushing psychological or physical dependency on habits or drugs, or to the process of becoming fully alert to one’s potential. I refer here to what we could call psychological freedom. Once again, Robert Bellah catches the spirit of this vision of freedom well when he describes “Margaret”:

For Margaret, as for others influenced by modern psychological ideals, to be free is not simply to be left alone by others; it is also somehow to be your own person in the sense that you have defined who you are, deeded for yourself what you want out of life, free as much as possible from the demands of conformity to family, friends, or community.28

I am not opposed to becoming psychologically independent of our parents, our addictions, or our pasts so that we become “individuated” or personally responsible adults. But for many, the process of becoming a free-thinking individual, the process of growing up, or the process of working through one’s past (with its possible serious hindrances) is the essence of freedom and the goal of life. It is fundamentally important for every individual to be able to look in a mirror, admit who he or she is, and embrace that person. This is knowing ourselves. But self-knowledge is not biblical freedom. Knowing ourselves is only a step in learning to know who we are before God and learning what we can be through Christ and in the Spirit. Mental and psychological health is not biblical freedom any more than eliminating racial prejudice is the Millennium. The Bible sees psychological health as a product of learning who we are (sinners), surrendering our egos to Jesus (conversion), and becoming what God wants (obedient Christians). To be sure, the process of acquiring psychological health can be turbulent and temporarily devastating for some; it therefore deserves special attention. Nonetheless, I maintain that psychological freedom is not the goal but the result of God’s grace.

Each of the above-mentioned models of freedom that are fashionable in our society today are part of what the Bible defines as freedom. But we are wrong if we equate these quests with Paul’s call to freedom. To gain our bearings on where we are headed, we need to remind ourselves of how we can properly apply the Pauline idea of freedom: first we need to examine what the apostle meant in his context, then what it means in our day, and finally we can integrate Paul’s message into our society, both informing our culture and correcting it. We have stated Paul’s view and briefly sketched three concepts of freedom in our society. In our next section we shall make some applications.

Contemporary Significance

WE MUST RECALL our brief outline of the idea of freedom in Paul’s letters before going any further. There are two dimensions to freedom in Paul, a theological dimension, and a human dimension. The theological dimension includes a relationship with God through Christ and in the Spirit, and the human dimension includes both a personal and a social aspect. Paul’s emphases were on the freedom from the curse of the law and on the freedom for all persons to be part of God’s family (3:28). We must also recall what we said about the typical perceptions of freedom in our society: it can be individual, social, or psychological.

What we need to perceive is that Paul’s view of freedom is not our society’s view of freedom. In fact, they are almost direct opposites at times. For the apostle, freedom involves “slavery to God and his will,” while for moderns freedom means doing whatever one wants; for Paul, freedom begins only in a relationship with God through Christ and in the Spirit, while for moderns freedom means being alone; for Paul, individual, social, and psychological freedom is the glorious outworking of what God can do in a person through Christ and in the Spirit, while for moderns these forms of freedom are the determining goal of life; for Paul, freedom was interdependence, while for moderns it is independence. Put differently, we cannot apply freedom in Paul to our society until we see that the two are at odds with one another. This forces us to decide: “We have only to choose between bondage to the Father, which makes us free, and bondage to the powers of this world, which enslaves us.”29

How then do we apply this? First, people must see what they need to be free from before they can become free. The message of Paul is that we are bound to the law and its curse, to sin, to self, and to an evil world. Galatians 1:4 is Paul’s first comment about freedom in our letter: “who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age.” Here we have all four: Law is implied in sin, self in the words “our” and “us,” and the world in “present evil age.” No one becomes “biblically free” until one accepts that he or she is enslaved to sin, self, and the world. It does no good to tell a prisoner who lives out his life on a lush resort, playing golf during the day and dancing the night away with wine, women, and song, that he needs to be set free if the things that he enjoys most are constantly available. If, however, his greatest desires are “on the outside,” then he can be set free from his deprivation to do them. So also it does no good to tell persons they need to be set free from sin if they do not realize how awful their state is. As John Stott says, “True freedom is freedom from my silly little self, in order to live responsibly in love for God and others.”30

Let me put this differently: we cannot apply freedom to our world unless we share the gospel with our world. This means we cannot proclaim our message of freedom until we proclaim the reality of sin. The great theologian, Augustine, once said: “The will is then truly free, when it is not the slave of vices and sins.”31

Second, we must inform our world for what they are set free through Christ and in the Spirit. People are set free to serve God, to follow Jesus, and to live in the Spirit. Once again, this is not what our society wants, but it is exactly what the true Christian wants. Our society wants to be left alone, to tear down social barriers, and to find oneself. Jesus wants us to be left with him and his people, to break down barriers in society as a reflection of God’s love in our hearts, and to find oneself in denying ourselves before God. As Thielike states: “For Christians, freedom, as distinguished from enslavement under the law, arises as a result of my being empowered to be a responsible child of God and to learn to will what God wills. Freedom here becomes the unimpeded spontaneity of love.”32 And Mortimer Adler adds: “Man cannot be more free than when he succeeds, with God’s help, in submitting himself through love to the rule of God.”33

What will this freedom be like when we find it? The person who is truly free is a person who (1) trusts, loves, and obeys God through Christ and in the Spirit, (2) loves and serves others, and (3) lives before God with a clear conscience as he or she grows before God in holiness and love. So I agree with our age: there are at least three dimensions of freedom. We need to be free individually (so we can be who God wants), free socially (so all can see the glory of God), and free psychologically (so we can relate to God and others authentically and clearly).

We can achieve this threefold sense of freedom through Christ and in the Spirit. (1) We must be frankly honest before God about ourselves. The Bible calls this confession. Until we face up to who we really are (sinful, imperfect people who live in the constant pain of our imperfection), we cannot be free. This is not a “solidarity confession” (I, with everyone else, am a sinner) but a “solitary confession” (I, though maybe no else be with me, am a sinner). When we come to God on his terms, admitting who we truly are, we will gain access to his freedom.

(2) We must come to God honestly by relying on what he wants us to rely on: Jesus Christ. Only then will we experience the freedom God wants. Jesus Christ is the way God opens up for our line to freedom. Jesus did this through his death, which tore down barriers and cleansed us from sin and imperfection. When we trust in God’s “appointed one to be trusted,” we find the freedom of God.

(3) We must then “live in the Spirit.” God’s Spirit is God’s appointed way of being renewed, of being healed, and of being made complete. The Spirit animates our lives before God so we can be and do what God wants us to be and do.

When we come to God and live before him through Christ and in the Spirit, we live in freedom. Three things then happen to us. We are personally set free from our sin and our unfortunate past (though it may take some therapy and time for healing), we are set free to serve others so that social barriers are broken down, and we become what we always wanted to be though we never knew what it was. Thus, we become psychologically, socially, and individually free. For such persons, legalistic invasions, cultural imperialisms, racial prejudices, and denominational fixations do not cause alarm, for they know, in the Spirit and through Christ, they can live above them and through them.

But these three dimensions of freedom contrast with our society in their actual manifestations. Let’s take the issue of “individual freedom.” While our society sees this as “being left alone” or as “finding oneself,” the Christian does not see it this way. The Christian knows that he or she has been set free by God through Christ and in the Spirit, not simply to become a solitary island with a stony appearance in the waters of life. Rather, it means knowing one’s place before God and others. Our identity does not come from discovering ourselves but from knowing God and learning to relate to others as children of God. To be sure, Christians become individually free, but only in order that they might become part of a community. Christian freedom does not seek isolation but fellowship.

Social freedom, while appearing similar because the Christian stands side-by-side at an abortion clinic with a non-Christian social activist or with a non-Christian in a courtroom arguing out a case for justice, is not the same. The Christian wants there to be justice because God is just, not because justice is some metaphysical reality; the Christian wants to tear down sexual discrimination, not because he or she is a social “do-gooder,” but because in the gospel of Jesus Christ “there is no male nor female.” And so each active involvement on the part of a Christian is a Christian witness to the social impact of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Social justice is not an end in itself; it is a means of declaring the work of God for the Christian.

Christians have been set free psychologically so they can be healthy in their relationship to God, to others, and to themselves. I put the last one last because the Bible turns our society’s values on their head. Self-discovery is only one of three reasons God sets us free. There is nothing more enjoyable to God than to see his people mentally healthy: healthy in all their relationships. But once again we see that freedom is freedom for something: for relating to God, to self, and to others. It is not personal absorption and ego-staring. It is the freedom of God’s Spirit, blowing with his gentle spirit into our psyches so that we can be healed before God and others.

What Paul wants us to be able to work out in our world is an ability to cut down the minimizing of freedom. What hampers our living in the freedom of Christ? What bites into our freedom in the Spirit? Perhaps the most obvious one for all of us is social custom. Why is it that a local church has a set time for the Sunday morning service, usually between forty-five minutes and an hour? I suspect that it is social custom—generated over years of experience of the need to get home before the “roast burns,” to get home so the afternoon can be spent in the way planned, to get home to watch an NFL football game, to get home in time so the family can travel to a local lake, etc. But how binding would such a social convention be if God’s Spirit suddenly broke into a service and created a renewed sense of the holiness of God and the fellowship of the Spirit? How binding? Probably too binding. Our social convention would be pressed by some and the result would be a stifling of the good work of God.

My contention here is that whatever cuts into the freedom of God’s Spirit needs to be cut out. We need to have services whose times are not determined by social convention, we need to have fellowships that are not segregated by social race, we need to have churches that are not restricted by cultural background, and we need to have ministries that are not hedged by sexual identity. We need to have all things led by the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit is, there is the freedom of the Lord.

Paul’s whole message in Galatians may now be summarized: Be free, through Christ and in the Spirit! When we come to God through Christ and in the Spirit, we are free at last. Thank God, Almighty! We are free at last.34