What's the Harm? Two Different Messianic Approaches to Galatians 5

Everyone agrees that Paul is issuing a warning against something harmful in Galatians 5.  But the two camps of Messianic Judaism (the segregationists and the desegregationists--or Bilateralists and One Law proponents) each propose a different harm.  So what's the harm?  It depends on whether you're asking a One Law proponent or a bilateralist.

The Bilateralist says that, in Galatians 5:1-4, Paul thinks that uninformed decision-making is the real harm.  Paul doesn't want gentiles becoming circumcised lest they unwittingly burden themselves with the Mosaic Torah.  The founders and leaders of the UMJC hold to this view:

"Galatians 5 warns Gentiles not to receive circumcision or they will be required to keep the whole Torah. The clear implication here is that without circumcision, Gentiles are not required to keep the whole Torah."  (One Law Movements:  A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community by Daniel Juster and Russ Resnik)

The One Law proponents say that, in Galatians 5:1-4, Paul thinks that anti-grace circumcision is the real harm. The evidence that Paul is addressing an anti-grace doctrine is found in the following verse:

"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

This verse indicates that there were individuals in Galatia who believed that they could be justified by the law.  Such a belief that is opposed to grace can be called "anti-grace."  Specifically, since this belief relates to circumcision we may call it "anti-grace circumcision."  

It all comes down to how one reads the following verse:  

"Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."  

If Paul thinks that the harm is uninformed decision-making then this verse reads as a warning for gentiles to consider well the obligation of Torah before becoming circumcised.  On the other hand, if Paul thinks that the harm is anti-grace circumcision then this reads as a warning that one who attempts to operate outside of grace will have to obey the law perfectly.

So those are the two different views.  That's the best breakdown I can offer.  I hope it helps someone out there.

Shalom,

Peter