In my latest message in our “Liberated” series, we dive into the powerful themes found in Galatians 4&5. Paul speaks of a different kind of freedom, one that goes beyond external circumstances. I explore what it means to stand firm in this freedom and address the subtle forms of slavery that can still entangle us today.
We’ll also explore Paul’s analogies, drawing parallels between two women, two children, and two cities, and discover a profound takeaway – the contrast between living under the Law and embracing the freedom found in Christ. It’s a reminder that our identity and purpose lie not in striving to meet the impossible standards of the Law but in enjoying the gift we’ve already received by faith.
I believe this message will inspire and encourage you, reminding you of the freedom and grace that are yours in Christ. I invite you to watch or listen and share it with others who may need encouragement too!
Discussion Questions for Galatians 4:21-5:6:
- Read verses 21-31. In your own words, seek to explain the analogies Paul gives here with two women, two children, and two cities. What is the takeaway?
- Read verse 1 of chapter 5. What kind of freedom is Paul talking about? What does it mean to stand firm? How specifically can we stand firm? What kind of “slavery” is offered today?
- Read verse 2. Why is Christ of “no benefit” in the situation described?
- Read verse 3. How does this verse demonstrate the perfect and impossible standard of the Law? How are people watering down the Law today to make it seem palatable and doable?
- Read verse 4. How do we know this verse is not about loss of salvation? What are these people seeking to do? How are they cutting themselves off from Christ? How are they falling away from the message of God’s grace? What are they falling toward?
- Read verse 5. Notice the contrast as this verse begins with “For we…” referring to believers. How does this further help us interpret verse 4 (the previous verse) correctly? In verse 5, does Paul mean we’re still hoping to be righteous someday? If not, then what does he mean by “the hope of righteousness”?
