Halting between grace and works.
Halting between grace and works.
John Stott and R. C. H. Lenski on the debacle of cutting Christ in half.
Among the several eyebrow-raising statements the apostle Paul makes in his letter to the Galatians, one of the most stunning lines appears at the beginning of Chapter 5, where he writes: “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal. 5:2). In effect, he says that the embrace of circumcision, which is just shorthand for the embrace of justification by works of the law, does nothing but render the person of Christ of no value. His work can’t profit or benefit those who are beholden to their own work. This is why he goes on to say that anyone “who would be justified by the law” is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4). In this way, we are made to understand the true tragedy of believing our works can save us. They can’t. Not then, not now, not ever. But, more to the point, thinking that our works can bring about salvation and right standing with God the Father diminishes the work that God’s Son took on flesh to accomplish.
As a result, the gospel is bisected and adapted to include our righteous efforts. This was what Paul was resolved to curtail through his letter to the Galatian churches. He was adamant that they resist falling prey to the notion that their divine acceptance was based upon their religious performance. “We must not lapse,” John R. W. Stott comments, “into the idea that we have to win our acceptance with God by our own obedience” (132). According to the gospel, this is why Christ died — namely, to secure divine approval for sinners who could never have accomplished that feat by themselves. To say otherwise, though, as the Judaizers were saying, was to ruin this message and effectively cut Christ in half. But, as R. C. H. Lenski says, the Lord Jesus “cannot be halved. Remove a fraction of Christ, and the entire profit of Christ is lost. One may mean ever so well when doing this, the result is fatal nonetheless” (254). The fatal notion to which Lenski refers is that which Paul has just explained — that is, accepting circumcision.
Consequently, any embrace of human works in the matter of one’s justification before the God of heaven nullifies the free offer of justification on account of Christ’s death and resurrection. The smallest fraction of human effort taints the whole thing. “Ninety-nine percent Christ plus one percent anything else is just as fatal as no percent of Christ,” Lenski trenchantly says. “All the saving power lies in him alone, and no less than all of it saves” (255). To say that Christ Jesus is the Savior is to, likewise, say that he does all the saving. “To preach circumcision,” Stott continues, “is to tell sinners that they can save themselves by their own good works; to preach Christ crucified is to tell them that they cannot and that only Christ can save them” (137). Thus the matter is clear: either Christ saves or we must save ourselves. There is no middle ground between these programs. Stott goes on to say:
You cannot have it both ways. It is impossible to receive Christ, thereby acknowledging that you cannot save yourself, and then receive circumcision, thereby claiming that you can. You have got to choose between a religion of law and a religion of grace, between Christ and circumcision. You cannot add circumcision (or anything else for that matter) to Christ as necessary to salvation, because Christ is sufficient for salvation in Himself. If you add anything to Christ, you lose Christ. Salvation is in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. (133–34)
Losing Christ or being severed from his work on the cross for you is the byproduct of accepting circumcision — that is, embracing salvation by your own efforts and energies. Insofar as you acknowledge and affirm this scheme of self-justification, you remove yourself from the peace and assurance that the Son of God died to give you. “The soul halting between grace and works,” Charles Spurgeon writes, “can never find rest for the sole of its foot” (145–46). Therefore, in keeping with the options Stott articulated, will you choose a religion of Christ or a religion of circumcision? “‘Circumcision,’” Stott concludes, “stands for a religion of human achievement, of what man can do by his own good works; ‘Christ’ stands for a religion of divine achievement, of what God has done through the finished work of Christ. ‘Circumcision’ means law, works, and bondage; ‘Christ’ means grace, faith, and freedom” (138).
At the end of the day, there are no other alternatives. It’s your works or it’s God’s grace — and “if it is by grace,” the apostle says elsewhere, “it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (Rom. 11:6). I pray the Word and Spirit of Christ fill you with the faith to make the right choice.
Grace and peace to you, friends.
Works cited:
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961).
Charles Spurgeon, The Saint and His Saviour: The Progress of the Soul the Knowledge of Jesus (Houston: Christian Focus, 1989).
John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians: Only One Way, The Bible Speaks Today Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).