GALATIANS

Gerald Peterman

The Roman province of Galatia was located in central Asia Minor (current day Turkey). Acts mentions that during Paul’s second missionary journey (Ac 13:13–14:28, c. AD 48) he did forceful—and also controversial—ministry in Antioch of Pisidia, with the result that "the word of the Lord was being spread through the whole region" (Ac 13:49). Because Paul later traveled through Galatia strengthening the disciples (Ac 18:23), Paul’s second missionary journey probably included evangelism and church planting there. Galatian churches likely were made up of believers from the cities of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch.

Author. The letter twice refers to Paul as its author (1:1; 5:2). As happens in a few of his letters, the closing refers to a postscript in his own hand (6:11; cf. 1Co 16:21; 2Th 3:17; Phm 19).

Date. Dating involves an intricate problem based on geography, on the timeline of events that Paul described in Galatians, and on the mission narrated in Acts. Probably the letter should be dated to AD 49, for the following reasons: First, Gl 2:1–10 is Paul’s telling of the famine-relief visit (Ac 11:30). That is, what Paul described in Gl 2:1–10 is not the Jerusalem Council of Ac 15. Second, the churches addressed were in South Galatia (see below), founded during the first missionary journey (Ac 13:13–14:28), which happened in approximately AD 48. Since Paul was shocked that their temptation to abandon the gospel came so quickly (1:6), the time of writing can be placed at around AD 49. Third, Paul came to Christ probably around AD 35, and the events described in Gl 2:1–10 must have occurred before the letter was written. Therefore, the reference to "fourteen years" (2:1) must be all-inclusive—that is, the "three years" previously mentioned (1:18) plus 11 more. This yields AD 49 (35 + 14).

Recipients. There is disagreement regarding the recipients of the epistles. The preferred view is that Paul wrote to churches he planted in South Galatia, though some scholars hold the view that the recipients were in North Galatia. The reasons for holding to the North Galatia theory, and the problems with those reasons, are as follows:

First, Paul referred to preaching to the Galatians "the first time" (Gl 4:13). The comment implies that Paul wrote after he visited them a second time and the second visit could only be to North Galatia (Ac 16:6; 18:23). But the term better could be translated "at first" and be taken as a reference to his church-planting visit. It would then be contrasted with proclamation of the gospel that happens in the letter. Second, Paul passed through North Galatia during the second missionary journey according to Ac 16:6 and 18:23. This is true, but there is no indication that churches were planted. Third, "Galatian" is properly a term for an ethnic group in the north, not south. Paul, however, could have used "Galatian" to refer to the Roman province rather than the ethnic group. Fourth, Gl 2:1–10 and Ac 15 are so similar that they must describe the same event (the issues of Gentiles, Jerusalem, gospel, and circumcision). If so, Gl 2 was written after Ac 15, and the churches written to would have been established during the second missionary journal into North Galatia. But the events of Ac 15 were public, and the confrontation in Gl 2 was private. Thus they are two different meetings not one. Fifth, in Ac 13–14 Luke did not use the term "Galatian" to describe the churches planted. This is an argument from silence. In addition, Paul and Luke could have used different terminology. In further support of the South Galatian position, Paul mentioned Barnabas in the letter (Gl 2:1, 9, 13), implying that the recipients knew him. Barnabas was with Paul in South Galatia (Ac 13–14), but not in the North (Ac 15:36–40).

Purpose. As with Colossians (see Introduction to Colossians, "Themes"), Paul wrote to combat false teaching (cf. Gl 1:6–9; 3:1–5; 5:7–12). Somehow the apostle got news of the trouble (Galatians does not tell how), and he wrote to call the churches back to the true gospel that he had originally delivered. Unlike in Colossians, however, he founded the churches in Galatia himself and was particularly attached to them.

Since Paul was not speaking to the opponents but to the Galatians about the opponents, the source of this false teaching is never fully clarified. We know only one partner in the conversation. But the opinions of the false teachers are hinted at in a few places in the letter. First, some had come to the Galatians offering a distorted gospel (1:7). They probably challenged Paul’s authority or perhaps even his apostleship (1:10–24). They required the Galatian believers to take on certain aspects of OT law, including at least circumcision (5:2–3) and festival days (4:10). They did these things with selfish motivations (6:12a, 13) and to avoid getting themselves persecuted for the cross of Christ (6:12b).

It follows that the false teachers could be called "Christian Jewish legalists." First, they could be called "Christian," not in the sense of being truly disciples of Christ (Ac 11:26), but in the sense that they had some degree of acceptance of Jesus. They could not be persecuted for the cross if they rejected Him. Second, they could be called "Jewish" in that they followed the law of Moses. Third, they were "legalists" because they required the Gentile converts to keep the law.

Themes. Several themes appear in the book of Galatians:

(1) The True Gospel and Paul’s Encounter with It. Apart from Acts, Galatians provides the most information about Paul’s life before the first missionary journey. He excelled in Judaism (1:13–14), was zealous for the law (1:14; cf. Ac 22), and had impeccable credentials (Php 3:4b–6). But his life was drastically transformed (1:15–24).

(2) Gospel, Law, and God’s Salvation Plan. Indicators from the letter show that the Galatians had previously embraced Paul’s gospel but were being threatened by Christian Jewish legalists who insisted that they adopt OT practices (3:2–4), including at least circumcision (5:2–3) and certain festival days (4:10). Paul viewed the legalists’ message as another—that is, a false—gospel (1:6–9). Thus there is in Galatians, as there is in Romans, Paul’s instruction on the role of the law in God’s plan, on the gospel as God’s grace, and on how the gospel of grace and justification by faith is consistent with God’s previous revelation in the OT.

(3) Jews and Gentiles. Closely related to the above, in his explanation of gospel and law Paul had to touch on the relations between Jews and Gentiles in God’s plan. Though this topic is more fully treated in Ephesians and Romans, nevertheless one sees in Galatians that even though Jesus is a thoroughly Jewish Messiah (4:4–5), He brings blessing to Gentile believers as well as Jewish believers (e.g., the Holy Spirit, adoption as sons). Indeed, it is because Messiah Jesus serves Jewish believers, bringing them blessing, that blessing can come to Gentile believers as well (Rm 15:8–9; Gl 4:4–7).

(4) The Holy Spirit and Christian Life. Paul reminded the Galatians that one proof of salvation by faith was reception of the Holy Spirit (3:1–5). As was predicted in the OT, He is a promised blessing of the new covenant (Ac 2:33; Gl 3:14; Eph 1:13). Unique to Galatians is the command to walk by the Spirit (5:16; cf. Rm 8:4), and the teaching on the fruit of the Spirit (5:22–23). In common with Romans is the close connection between adoption as children of God and the reception of the Spirit (Gl 4:6; Rm 8:14–17). Paul gave some instruction on what walking by the Spirit would look like in 6:1–10.

1:1. An apostle is one sent or commissioned as a representative of a church (Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23) or of God Himself (as here; cf. Rm 1:1; 1Co 12:28). Paul asserted that his apostleship—and therefore his gospel, see below vv. 6–9—was divine. It did not have a human source (not … from men) nor did it come via the agency of a merely human intermediary. Instead the commission came from Christ the Son and God the Father. Even here Paul forecasted one of the major concerns of the early part of this epistle: to defend himself against the charge of concocting the gospel message he preached. It was not a novelty he invented; he got it from God. Paul digressed briefly on the Father. As in Rm 4:24, He is said to have brought about the resurrection, which is a crucial element of the gospel (cf. 1Co 15:4).

1:2. Uniquely here, Paul’s letter is addressed to several churches (on Galatia, see Introduction: Recipients, above). So it is a circular letter.

1:3–5. After Paul’s frequent wish for grace and peace (see comments on 1Co 1:1–3), Paul digressed on the atonement of Christ, mentioning two elements. First, Christ’s death was as a sacrifice on behalf of His people (our sins), and second, it was to rescue us, not only from future wrath—although it certainly does that (Rm 5:9; 1Th 1:10)—but also from this present evil age (cf. Rm 12:2; Eph 5:16).

As the next verses go on to warn against a false gospel, vv. 1–5 have summarized some key elements of the true gospel: sins, grace, atonement (gave Himself), resurrection, rescue, and peace. Furthermore, there are the beginnings of Trinitarianism in these verses, for they show both the combined and the unique work of the Father and the Son (e.g., the Father’s will, the Son’s atonement, the Father’s work in raising the Son, grace and peace coming from both).

1:6–7. Although the shift is to a thing (the different gospel), it is away from a person: God is the one who called the Galatians. In Paul’s writings, the call is often seen as God’s work of effectively drawing people to Himself (cf. Rm 8:30). But the Galatians were being influenced to move to a different gospel. The term different gospel appears elsewhere only in 2Co 11:4, where Paul called those who teach it, servants of Satan (2Co 11:14–15). For Paul, a different gospel is not a Christian adjustment to be taken lightly, but a satanic distortion to be rejected. Paul’s reaction is not as in Php 1:12–18, where the true gospel is preached, although with false motives. Here it is another gospel, a completely different kind of gospel—that is, it does not really qualify as gospel; it does not work as the real one.

Although the legalists surely would claim they were not disturbing anyone, Paul knew better. The term some implies that Paul could not identify the opponents by name. "Disturb" reflects Paul’s theological perspective. Distort (metastrepho) appears only here and in Ac 2:20 in the NT and means "to cause a change of state, with emphasis upon the difference in the resulting state—‘to change to, to turn into, to cause to be different from, to transform’　" (L&N, 1:155; see also the variant reading for Jms 4:9).

1:8–9. Truth and power rest with the true gospel itself, not with particular people or beings. The language is hypothetical. Though it is impossible, even if Paul or a holy angel were to peach a different gospel, it could not save. Only the true gospel can save. Different gospels cause people to think they are saved when in fact they are still lost. Thus the seriousness of the issue caused Paul to call those who preach a contrary gospel accursed (Gk. anathema, which in the NT is a thing devoted to destruction; cf. Rm 9:3; 1Co 16:22; compare the verb form in Ac 23:14; Mk 14:71).

Since the gospel Paul previously delivered to the Galatians was under challenge, he was compelled to defend the gospel and also himself, because he was the one from whom they received it. This defense stresses the gospel’s divine origin, its power in Paul’s life, and Paul’s knowledge of the gospel obtained independently of other apostles. Even though he gained his knowledge independently, he and the other apostles all agreed on it. These points were crucial for Paul to reestablish his credibility with the Galatian believers.

Paul asked two rhetorical questions in v. 10a that together essentially convey, "I do not seek to please men but God." Probably a charge brought against him by the legalists was that, to please people, he preached a law-free gospel. As Jesus said, one cannot serve two masters, so Paul said that pleasing people precludes one from serving Christ. Verse 11 gives Paul’s primary point: his gospel is divine, supernatural, and revealed. The next few verses support the point that the gospel is not of human origin.

The gospel came when Jesus Christ was revealed (objective genitive, "the revelation about Jesus Christ") to Paul. That is, Christ is the content of the revelation (this is common language for Paul: "preach him," v. 16; "preach Christ," Php 1:15–17), clarified by the encounter on the Damascus road and the three days of fasting thereafter.

Since Paul was intimately familiar with Judaism and also fully committed and successful in it (advancing), he had no reason to give it up. He held no sympathy for the message of Christians, for he used to persecute them, then the gospel changed everything for him. Paul reminded them that he was above others in zeal for tradition; cf. Ac 7:58; 9:1–30.

We find four parts in Paul’s continued biographical discussion: the situation surrounding his coming to faith in Christ (vv. 15–16a), a denial that he received his message from others (vv. 16b–17), a brief history related to his relationship with the other apostles (vv. 18–19), and a solemn affirmation that he was telling the truth on the origin of his gospel (v. 20). The denial is primary.

First, Paul presented the situation surrounding his coming to faith in Christ (vv. 15–16a). He was set apart in God’s timing (cf. Jr 1:5; Is 49:1–6). God revealed His Son to Paul (cf. 1:12b; 2Co 4:6), so Paul saw Jesus in his revelatory experience on the road to Damascus (1Co 9:1). God selected Paul to preach Him among Gentiles, and the implications of Paul’s focus for the Gentile mission were closely attached to this revelation (v. 16; cf. Ac 9:15). His ministry, of course, would be grounded in preaching a law-free gospel.

Second, Paul denied that he received the gospel from men or devised it himself (vv. 16b–17). His primary statement on this second point was that he did not consult (prosanatithemi, used twice in the NT [here and in 2:6], means "to take up a matter with" someone). What Paul was asserting was his independence from apostolic input as to the content of the gospel. Paul had received a divine revelation, and he did not need consultation with others to clarify the truth. Paul added detail to the account in Ac 9:19–20. Instead of consulting Jerusalem, Paul did ministry in Arabia, and then served for three years in Damascus (on the edge of Arabia). He had to flee Damascus due to persecution (2Co 11:32–33).

Third, Paul presented a brief history (vv. 18–19) that contains information not found elsewhere about his post-conversion, but pre-missionary journey life. He visited Jerusalem three years after the Damascus road experience. Paul paid a respectful visit to the other apostles, but his primary point was to argue for his independence from them, at least in terms of his reception of the message he preached. This visit lasted only 15 days, and its purpose was not to learn the gospel but to get to know Cephas (Peter). Paul did not interact with any other apostles except James (cf. 1Co 15:1–7 where only Peter and James are mentioned). James—the first among Jesus’ brothers (Mk 6:3)—was an apostle but not on the order of the Twelve (cf. 1Co 15:7). In the broadest, least technical sense, "apostle" referred to recognized workers of local churches (Php 2:25; 2Co 8:23). But the Twelve and Paul were commissioned as witnesses to the resurrection and had unique, unrepeatable authority and power (2Co 12:12).

Fourth, Paul insisted that he was not lying (v. 20; see 1Th 2:5; 2Co 11:31). He needed to assert this because he was almost certainly being accused of the opposite by his opponents who, judging from what Paul said in these opening verses, claimed that Paul fabricated the gospel message and lied by claiming he got it from God.

Paul’s departure to Syria and Cilicia (modern southeast Turkey and Lebanon) provided further proof of his independent knowledge of the true gospel. He was far away and had no interaction with the other apostles and believers in Judea. As a result, he remained unknown by sight to them. But they had heard reports about Paul—the one who had been persecuting Judean believers and those in other regions was now preaching the faith. This word faith (pistis) is used by Paul with several different meanings in his letters. It can mean "an individual’s trust or reliance upon Christ for salvation" (Rm 3:28; Eph 2:8), "faithfulness" (Rm 3:5), or, as it is used here, "that which is believed," i.e., the content of the gospel or Christian doctrine that one believes (cf. Gl 3:23; Php 1:27). The emphasis here is on the content of faith, while the action of faith (believing) is not excluded. Since churches in Judea were glorifying God because of Paul’s transformation, it was clear that his gospel was implicitly affirmed.

2:1–5. Paul began to develop further his relationship with the church and apostles in Judea. Fourteen years (v. 1) is the total time between Paul’s conversion and his second visit to Jerusalem (see Galatians Introduction: Date). The revelation (v. 2a) is probably the prophecy of famine given by Agabus in Ac 11:28 for several reasons: First, Ac 11:30 specifically states that Agabus’s prophecy led to the sending of Barnabas and Saul (Paul). Second, the economic obligation of Gentiles to Jews was of unique importance to Paul (e.g., Rm 15:26–27; 2Co 8–9). Third, it best fits the timing of events to equate the visit of Gl 2 with the trip mentioned in Ac 11:27–30. As that passage tells, Paul’s trip to Jerusalem was designed to supply economic aid to the Jerusalem church. Although Paul never doubted the truth of the gospel that he preached, he submitted his gospel to them (the church leadership) to learn if there was division between the Gentile and Jewish churches. Unity among believers was so important to him that such a division would make his work in vain. The issue could not be agreement on the content of the gospel. If it were, and he had found that there was disagreement, that would mean Paul had preached a false gospel for 14 years (that is, his work had been in vain).

Paul’s gospel was affirmed—that is recognized as genuine (see 2:7–9). The syntax of vv. 3–4a is broken, but the thought should read, "Even though some false brethren tried to compel Titus to be circumcised, he was not." Titus was a Gentile, and Paul saw no need for him to be circumcised, though it was appropriate for him to circumcise Timothy, who was Jewish (through his mother), as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant and to avoid offending Jews on their missionary journeys (cf. Ac 16:3).

2:6–10. Paul argued that the fundamental difference between him and the Jerusalem apostles was not in the content of the gospel but in the focus of their respective ministries. As Paul said in 1:6–9, the truth of the gospel does not rest with human clout or reputation. Nevertheless, even those of high reputation did not need to correct or add to Paul’s gospel. Both he and they were entrusted with the same gospel (cf. 1Th 2:4). But there was a difference: for Peter (v. 7)—as a representative of Jerusalem—the primary audience was Jews (the circumcised). For Paul, it was Gentiles (v. 8; cf. Rm 11:13). Paul’s ministry was not so much approved as it was recognized as God’s work (his ministry was the grace … given to Paul, v. 9a; cf. Eph 3:8). Furthermore, this division of labor was not made begrudgingly, but with peace (they extended to Paul the right hand of fellowship, v. 9b). The only request the Jewish leaders made of Paul—something that Paul had already been eager to do—was continuing to help the poor (an ancient nickname for the Jewish believers of the Jerusalem church; cf. Rm 15:26–27).

Paul further demonstrated his independence by his rebuke of Cephas (Peter) in Antioch. Defining the main characters helps to clarify the situation (though these points are debated among Pauline scholars): Men from James were probably Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. Gentiles were Gentile Christians. The rest of the Jews were probably Jewish believers from Antioch. The party of the circumcision was probably a group of non-Christian Jews of Jerusalem whom Peter did not want to alienate. Paul confronted Peter in person (to his face, v. 11) on his inconsistent actions because Peter was having table fellowship with Gentiles until "some from James," (vv. 12b–13) arrived. The Jewish people were taught, on the basis of the kosher laws in Lv 11, not to eat with Gentiles for fear of consuming unclean food (see Jubilees 22:16, written around 150 BC; 4Q394–399 B.I.1–3, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, c. 125 BC; and Josephus, Ant., 13.245 [13.8.3], which notes that a common criticism of Gentiles against the Jewish people was their insistence on living separate lives, segregating themselves from Gentiles).

On this episode, Michael Bird writes, "Peter’s separation signified a denial of the equal status of Gentiles in the messianic community and represented a demand (implied or verbalised) that Gentiles would have to judaize (i.e., undergo circumcision) in order to attain that status. Paul’s rebuff to Peter concerns the sufficiency of faith in Christ for the entrance and inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles in God’s saving action" (The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2007], 131–132). This inconsistency in Peter spread to others and even included Paul’s missionary partner Barnabas. For Paul this was about Peter not being motivated by his convictions (see in 2:1–10) but by fear (thus, hypocrisy).

Paul rebuked Peter because he saw his actions as denying the truth of the gospel (Jews and Gentiles together receiving the covenant promises offered by faith in Christ; cf. Eph 2). His rhetorical question acted like a statement: Your previous table fellowship with Gentiles (living like a Gentile) means your present attempts to get them to adopt Jewish practices is going to be fruitless.

This section summarizes all that came before and makes the main points for what comes next. The law of Moses produces neither justification nor sanctification. Furthermore, justification does come to both Jews and Gentiles on the same basis: faith in Jesus Christ.

2:15–16. These verses continue the record of Paul’s dispute with Peter. In contrast with Jews, here sinners refers to those without the law of Moses (Gentiles). But neither having the Law nor doing the Law (works) can justify. This word "justify" is so important for understanding Galatians (2:17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4).

Sometimes the verb "to justify" means "to show to be right" (e.g., Lk 7:29; Rm 3:4; Jms 2:24). Mostly, however, Paul used "to justify" in a legal sense meaning "to put in a right/just position before a judge," or "to declare to be innocent" (e.g., Rm 3:28; 4:5; 8:30; 1Co 6:11). For Paul the judge is God. So "to be justified" is to be put in a right relationship with God, to be innocent before Him. "Justification" is the noun that labels this event. When one is in a right relationship with God one has justification.

Justification comes only by faith. Therefore, even though Paul and Peter were in the privileged position of being Jews, they (we) believed in Jesus; and so should every person (no flesh has to do with all humanity regardless of ethnicity; cf. Ps 143:2). For emphasis Paul repeated this faith-works contrast three times.

Some translations of v. 16 say "through the faithfulness of Christ" (pistis Christou; NET, TNIV margin; cf. KJV). Against this understanding it should be pointed out, first, that what Paul meant by the noun "faith" (pistis) is partially explained by the verb "believe" (pisteuo; cf. 3:6–7; Rm 4:3, 9); second, if Paul had wanted to mention Christ’s faithfulness as the grounds for one’s salvation, there were clearer ways to say it, such as asserting that reconciliation or justification is based on the faith or faithfulness that Jesus Himself had, something Paul nowhere explicitly states ("Jesus Christ" is never found as the subject of the verb "to believe/be faithful," and it is never modified by a "faith" word). And third, this expression (pistis Christou) is contrasted with the phrase works of the Law. Since works of law entail human action, the contrast leads readers to expect that faith in 2:16 also entails human action (that is, it is a person’s faith directed to Christ) rather than the action of Jesus Christ.

In accordance with the first use of this word in Galatians (pistis; see comments on 1:23), 2:16 is better translated "man is justified … through what is believed about Christ Jesus." This belief has an intellectual element but must be more than merely intellectual assent. It must be personal trust in Jesus for forgiveness (Ac 10:43) and reconciliation to God (Rm 5:11). The content of this belief has been summarized in 1:3–5 (sins, grace, atonement, resurrection, rescue, and peace; cf. 1Co 15:1–3). But it is simpler to read "faith in Christ" and realize that this faith has cognitive content.

2:17–18. Trusting Christ for justification puts one under the new covenant; the commands of OT law are no longer covenant requirements. Therefore conversion can be said to make one free from the requirements of the law, and from a Jewish perspective one who does not keep the law’s demands is a sinner in the narrow sense of v. 16 (sinner = without law). But this does not mean that Christ encourages sin (by a broader definition). Instead, and ironically, the transgressor (a technical term for one who disobeys the law) is the one who considers the law still obligatory. For in Paul’s view it cannot be obeyed, but leads to transgression (Rm 3:20; 4:15; Gl 6:13). Peter at first destroyed the law (abandoned its food laws and so could eat with Gentiles), but then later adopted the law again (rebuilt it).

2:19–21. Christians are no longer obligated to the commands of OT law because, through their union with Christ in His death (crucified with; cf. the comments on Rm 6:3; Col 3:3) they have died to the Law (death implies separation—in this case, separation from the law; cf. the comments on Rm 6:10; 7:1–4). Paul’s death with Christ was through the Law since its curse demanded death (3:10–13). Jesus took this penalty demanded by (through) law; since we died with Him our death happens through law as well.

Paradoxically this death produces real life (live to God; cf. the comments on Rm 7:1–6), for under the new covenant what lives in the believer is not law but Christ. We live a human life (in the flesh) but it is lived by faith. As in Jn 3:16, the Son loved and gave; Paul took this love personally (me), as should every believer (Eph 3:14–19). Verse 21 implies that Peter’s actions (shunning fellowship with Gentiles) have nullified grace, because they communicated that righteousness (what is needed for one to be right before God; cf. Rm 3:21–22; 1Co 1:30) comes through obedience to the Law.

Paul moved to address the Galatians directly. The verbal link to the preceding is the crucifixion (mentioned in 2:21 and 3:1). Both the Galatians’ own experience of the gospel and the OT prove that the different gospel that threatens them is worthless.

This first paragraph functions as an introduction to the biblical exposition that follows. The Galatians’ own experience began so well—being in full accord with the true gospel and the Scriptures. Hence Paul expressed his dismay at their potential departure from biblical teaching and then exposited OT Scripture to demonstrate that justification by faith is in full conformity to it.

3:1. Showing deep concern for the Galatians, Paul rebuked them sharply (cf. 1Co 3:1). His words (foolish, v. 3; 1Tm 6:9; bewitched, only here in the NT) imply they were in danger of seriously misunderstanding the gospel. They needed to see Christ crucified again, for if righteousness were through obedience to the law, then He was crucified "needlessly" (2:21).

3:2–5. Paul next asked a series of rhetorical questions that drive at one (only) all-important thing: the Holy Spirit. He is a promised blessing of the new covenant (Ezk 36:27; Jl 3:1; cf. Jr 31:31–34) and is not received by obedience to Law but only by hearing the gospel and believing (faith; cf. 3:14). Paul said earlier that faith and law are mutually exclusive (2:15–16). Parallel to those two, Spirit and flesh (divine empowerment vs. mere human strength or effort) are likewise mutually exclusive. Since law and flesh are powerless (Rm 7:5; 8:3), attempting to grow in spiritual maturity (be perfected) by them is fruitless (vain). The Galatians’ situation was dangerous, but with the words if indeed (v. 4), Paul held out the possibility that the Galatians’ suffering would not be in vain.

The link with 3:1–5 is the question, "How does one receive God’s blessing?" By faith the Galatians received the Spirit (3:2b), a promised blessing of the OT. Likewise, and more important, Abraham received blessing—that is, righteousness—by faith.

Probably Paul’s legalistic opponents claimed that the blessing of being in Abraham’s family comes by way of law. For Paul, on the other hand, those characterized by trust (those who are of faith) are Abraham’s children. To demonstrate that blessing comes by faith, not by works, Paul went to Gn 15:6. It is the first passage in the OT that links faith and righteousness. Furthermore, in Gn 12:1–3 God promised blessing to all … nations through Abraham’s family. Since being blessed like this is available to all (even Gentiles), it cannot come by the Mosaic law, for that had been given to Israel, not the Gentiles. Blessing comes to those who trust God, as Abraham did, not to those who rely on works.

This section helps explain why blessing is not by works. Paul cited key verses of the OT that he treated as basic principles of operation. The point is that, in contrast to the blessing that came to believing Abraham, the law does not yield blessing but a curse (cf. Dt 30:15–20; 2Co 3:7–9). The logic of vv. 10–14 runs this way:

1. The blessing of the Law is promised to those who obey it (v. 12, quoting Lv 18:5).

2. What Paul left unstated is that the blessing is never actually received. Instead, those who rely on works are not able to do all that is written in the law (cf. Rm 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; 6:14).

3. Thus, all who rely on law are cursed (v. 10, quoting Dt 27:26).

4. The truth of statement 3 above is confirmed. Since Hab 2:4 says that blessing comes by faith (cf. Rm 1:16–17), it cannot come by obedience to law.

5. Through his crucifixion, Christ redeemed (exagorazo refers to buying someone or something out of a dangerous position; cf. 4:5) believers from the penalty of the Law (the curse; v. 13 quoting Dt 21:23).

6. Thus the blessing that was promised to Abraham—including the Holy Spirit (cf. 3:2)—comes to all those who have faith, even Gentiles (v. 14).

The flow of thought has to do with promise (cf. 3:14). Paul just said that the blessing promised to Abraham comes by faith. Here we see that the promises associated with the Abrahamic covenant take precedence over the Mosaic covenant (law) because they are qualitatively superior to and temporally prior to it.

Paul used an illustration from normal human life: a validated contract (covenant, v. 15) is legally binding. It can neither be ignored nor modified. Similarly, the law cannot add conditions to receiving the inheritance (v. 18; e.g., family, great name, land). The law could not provide these things for two reasons. First, the promise was graciously granted by God Himself (cf. Gn 12:1–3; 15:18–21). Second, it was made four hundred and thirty years before the law came (vv. 17–18; cf. Ex 12:40). For Paul, law and promise could not mix (v. 18a). If the inheritance were based on obedience to law, that would nullify God’s promise.

God made a promise to Abraham and to his seed—that is, his family (Gn 13:15; 17:8). Seed in the Old and New Testaments is a collective singular. Use of the plural would imply different kinds of seeds (e.g., Mk 4:31). But there is only one family of God. Abraham’s seed (singular) is Christ (v. 16), and all those "in Him" are part of Abraham’s seed (v. 29).

The Mosaic law may have unintentionally appeared in such a bad light in 3:15–18 that Paul came to discuss its function in the following passage. He gave two questions about law (vv. 19–20, vv. 21–22) and then a statement about its temporary nature (vv. 23–25).

Before getting to the details, Paul’s presentation can be summarized in this way. Paul’s opponents inappropriately prioritized the Mosaic covenant (the law). This misled the Galatians on the gravity and purpose of the Abrahamic covenant. To correct this, Paul compared these two covenants to a legal will—no small matter because in Paul’s world, one’s "last will and testament" was binding. The Abrahamic covenant came first (v. 17) and should have the greater weight regarding the means of salvation. But if Paul’s opponents were right, then the law virtually cancelled out the Abrahamic covenant. Paul showed that the Abrahamic covenant was not set aside with the coming of the law (3:15–18). God’s purpose in giving the law was never that it should save; it was to serve as a "chapterone" (traditionally translated as "pedagogue" or "tutor"; NIV 1984, "put in charge to lead us," 3:24), a male slave who accompanied the sons in affluent families, and who protected them by restricting their behavior until they matured ("held prisoners … locked up," 3:23, NIV 1984). The purpose of the law was never to save. It was to enable Israel to know how to avoid sin and thus God’s temporal judgment as a corporate people, so that she could begin to fulfill her role in representing Him in the world. Salvation for the Jewish people was always through having a faith similar to Abraham’s, not through keeping the law. That faith, following the cross, is explicitly in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Now that this grace has come, believers are no longer under the chaperone, the law (3:23–4:7).

3:19–20. The law came as a mere addendum (added) to the promise in order to bring consciousness of sin (transgressions, cf. Rm 3:20; 7:7). Law’s role was temporary—until the seed, that is Christ, arrived (cf. 3:23). Although the OT makes no explicit reference to angels having ordained the law, it is the NT view (cf. Ac 7:53; Heb 2:2). The OT speaks of the law being written by "the finger of God" (Ex 31:18; Dt 9:10). It is possible that this is a figurative way of speaking of a mediator. In Ex 8:19, the magicians marveled at the plague of gnats God caused through Moses, who functioned as "God’s finger." In addition, in Lk 11:20 Jesus cast out demons by the "finger of God," which in Mt 12:28 is said to be the Holy Spirit. The "finger of God" may be an expression for God acting through a mediator. If this is the case, then it is possible that "the finger of God"—the mediator(s)—involved in the giving of the law represents angels, as the NT writers profess. But Moses is explicitly called the law’s mediator in v. 19c (see also Ex 20:19; Dt 5:5). A mediator communicated the intentions of each party: God and Israel. Thus the law was a bilateral agreement. The words God is only one imply that the promise made to Abraham, unlike the giving of the law, was unilateral. In addition, if the law was written down by angels and mediated by Moses, then it is doubly removed from being the direct action of God toward His people, unlike the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

3:21–22. Law was not able to—nor was it intended to—fulfill the promise, that is, to impart righteousness (life). Instead its role was painful but valuable. Law and all Scripture reveal that people are sinful; indeed, they may be described as caught or imprisoned by sin (shut up; cf. Rm 11:32). The goal is to demonstrate that there is no hope of escape from sin by means of works, and so to ensure that the promise comes only by faith.

3:23–25. Paul explained further the law’s temporary function. We (v. 23) refers to Jews. They were under the law in that their lives were regulated by it (cf. 1Co 9:20). Here faith (v. 23 twice, v. 25) cannot be mere human trust in God, for Paul demonstrated that Abraham already had such faith (3:6–9; cf. Rm 4:3). Rather, as in 1:23, faith is the virtual equivalent of gospel. The coming of the gospel ended the rule of law.

The tutor (better "guardian" ESV, or even "chaperone"; paidagogos is only here and in 1Co 4:15) supervised minors. A child’s coming of age ended the guardian’s role (v. 25; 4:1–2). Thus, just as a guardian’s role was temporary, so was the law’s. The middle of v. 24 does not give a purpose statement (NASB: "to lead us" is not found in the original text) but a temporal expression and is better translated by the ESV: "our guardian until Christ came."

3:26–29. In 3:15–18 Paul implied that the legalists brought up the question of who was in Abraham’s—and thus God’s—family ("seed," v. 16; see also v. 29). Now in the age of the gospel not only Jews are God’s children (sons; cf. Ex 4:22; Dt 14:1; Hs 11:1). Instead, all (that is, even Gentiles) can become children by faith. Just as all can become children, so all can belong to Christ (v. 29a).

Paul used baptism as shorthand for conversion, since when being baptized one gave evidence of inner faith by public confession of Christ (cf. Rm 10:9–10; 1Co 12:3), and only those receiving Christian baptism were already believers. As he did elsewhere (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10), Paul’s metaphor of changing clothes (v. 27: clothed … with) illustrates that conversion entails becoming a new person. Verse 28 puts all on the same footing (one in Christ); all are equally welcome to come to Christ. Not all are simply equivalent, however. If Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, male and female no longer existed, Paul could not make such comments as "to the Jew first" (Rm 2:9–10), "slaves obey your masters" (Eph 6:5), and "wives, submit to your own husbands" (Eph 5:22). Likewise, if in church ministry there is no difference in role between men and women, Paul could not say that elders are men (1Tm 3:1–2) and that women are excluded from teaching leadership (1Tm 2:12).

Since becoming Abraham’s family happens according to promise, it does not happen by law. It is God’s act of grace received by faith.

4:1–7. Using the illustration of the heir as a minor (child), Paul further explained that the law’s role was for a time when God’s people were minors; that time was over. A child, as a person undeveloped, must learn basics first. In this context, the basics learned (elemental things, v. 3) were the OT laws as regulators of all life and as revealers of sin. They were further called guardians and managers (v. 2; Paul used the terms synonymously). Naturally, a time comes when basics are left behind.

The phrase When the fullness of time came (v. 4) does not speak of human events that constrained God. Rather, the Father set the time in advance. The time’s completion (fullness, v. 4) was brought about by the coming of the Son. His coming is the center of history. The Son is fully prepared to redeem (v. 5; see comments on 3:13) because He is fully human (born) and fully Jewish (under the Law is the position of a Jewish person, Rm 2:12; 1Co 9:20–21).

Both expressions those … under the Law and we refer to Jews. Adoption into God’s family was originally a uniquely Jewish blessing (Rm 9:4), which now has also come to Gentiles (you, v. 6; the pronoun is pl.). Closely related to adoption is receiving the Spirit (cf. Rm 8:14–17). The Spirit imparts assurance of being God’s children (sons) and enables believers to recognize and confess their new intimate relationship with God (Abba). Making this truth personal to each reader, there is a shift from the plural (you pl.; our) in v. 6 to the singular in v. 7: you (sg.) are no longer a slave. Paul switched easily from child (vv. 1, 3) to son (vv. 6–7) since in this context the terms are not gender specific (cf. 3:28; Rm 8:14–16).

4:8–11. Coming to know God is the language of conversion (Jn 17:3); did not know God is said of the unconverted or pagans (Jr 5:4; 1Th 4:5). Before Christ (at that time) the Galatians were slaves to what they wrongly thought were gods (no gods; cf. 1Co 8:5). All that changed. Paul did not correct himself in v 9; instead of rather, it is better to read "more importantly." That is, the Galatians’ change from ignorance to knowing comes at God’s initiative.

Although the two situations are different in many ways, Paul drew a parallel between the Jewish infancy under law (cf. 4:1–7) and the Galatians’ previous lives in paganism. He called both states slavery. Both were under elemental things (v. 9; see 4:3), and both were unable to bring salvation (weak). For the Galatians to return to observing the law was like returning to paganism again. The terms of v. 10 (e.g., days, months) probably refer generally to requirements of the Jewish religious calendar (e.g., Sabbaths, festivals).

In v. 11 Paul did not hint at loss of salvation. The question is whether his initial work (labor) resulted in their coming to true saving faith at all.

The section is intensely personal, appealing to Paul’s past relationship with the Galatians so as to move them back to the true gospel. As such he could assume knowledge of events he and they knew well, but about which we know nothing (e.g., illness, v. 13; sense of blessing, v. 15).

4:12a. Become is the first imperative of the letter. In keeping with his practice (1Co 9:19–23), Paul became like they were: free from the law. He exhorted them to become like he is: dead to the law and alive in Christ (cf. 2:19–21; see also the comments on Rm 7:1–6).

4:12b–16. The first time (v. 13) is better translated "at first" (ESV) and is to be contrasted with proclamation of the gospel that happens in the letter. Though impossible to know with certainty, Paul’s illness could have been ophthalmia, an inflammation of the eyes that could be caused by a variety of medical conditions (cf. v. 15; 6:11). Whatever it was, it caused Paul to stop intermittently in the Galatian region and thus produced opportunities for preaching. Even though his suffering was potentially offensive to the Galatians (trial, v. 14a), contrary to expectation, they did no wrong (v. 12b) to Paul by despising his condition (v. 14a) and shunning him. Instead, they welcomed him with honor (as an angel … as Christ, v. 14b). His presence with them was a joy (sense of blessing, v. 15a). They even would have made great sacrifices for him (plucked out … eyes, v. 15b).

The recounting of this very positive history (vv. 12–15) makes v. 16 more pointed. It is not a question, but an ironic, biting statement: "So then, because I preached to you the truth, I have become your enemy!" (author’s translation). Paul’s strong words were intended to grab attention, show the Galatians the absurdity of what they were toying with, and bring them back to their senses.

4:17–18. Paul contrasted his motivations with those of the legalists. They sought the Galatians falsely, to cut them off (shut … out) from Paul and his gospel. Paul sought the Galatians for their good (in a commendable way) both in this letter and when he was present with them (v. 18).

4:19–20. Paul displayed directness, emotional transparency, and deep affection. As their spiritual parent (my children), he agonized over them as a woman in labor (cf. 1Co 4:14–15; 1Th 2:7). For v. 20 the ESV translation ("I wish I could be present") is better. Being present with them would grant first-hand information and more time; he could speak with them and not just to them.

4:21–23. On the phrase under law see 3:22 and 4:4. Paul could use "law" to mean the entire OT (e.g., Rm 3:19; 1Co 14:21); thus his references here are to Gn 16–21 and Is 54:1. Paul reminded readers of basic facts from Genesis: Hagar was a slave; Sarah was free. Ishmael was born through normal human action (flesh); but Isaac was born by God’s action (promise). On Paul’s previous contrast between flesh and promise see 3:3, 17–18.

4:24–27. Next, Paul moved to apply the facts from Genesis by way of an analogy (a better translation and meaning of the word than allegorically; the word is only here in the NT). Paul was not endorsing allegorical interpretation nor was he denying the historicity of the Genesis narrative of Hagar and Sarah. Rather, he was illustrating his point. What he said earlier by way of logic and exegesis (3:6–18; 4:1–7), he verified by way of a story. For Paul, the two mothers of Genesis—Sarah and Hagar—could easily be compared to two covenants, two Jerusalems, and two types of parentage. First, regarding covenants, Paul already implied that the new is superior to the old; so was Isaac’s birth compared to Ishmael’s. Second, there is a present rebellious Jerusalem (cf. Mt 23:37). The city is used to stand for the nation; the nation rejected God and murdered prophets (Lk 13:34–35). Likewise, there is a future righteous Jerusalem (Jerusalem above; cf. Heb 11:10; 12:18–24; Rv 21:2). Isaiah 66:7–11 depicts a redeemed Jerusalem as a mother to God’s people. Third, there is a natural parentage that leads to slavery, to sin; there is a spiritual parentage that leads to freedom. This spiritual parentage happens by God’s supernatural work (just as Isaac’s birth did), and is as unexpected and joyful as the barren having numerous … children (Is 54:1).

4:28–30. Born of flesh vs. born of Spirit is in keeping with Paul’s earlier contrasts. Probably the persecution is to be found in Ishmael’s laughter in Gn 21:9. Those to be cast out are the legalists. Paul implied that there is a disjunction between law and freedom.

4:31–5:1. In conclusion, first, Paul reiterated that believers have freedom because of their rebirth (parentage from the free woman). This rebirth comes about through their Savior’s work (Christ). Second, he warned the Galatians not to take on the law as a means to acceptance before God. To do so would be to forfeit freedom (slavery).

5:2–4. One benefit Christ gives (5:2) is freedom from law (chap. 4). Apparently the legalists did not tell the Galatians that accepting circumcision meant obligation to obey the whole Law. In that case, of course, one has no freedom from the law. Similarly, those who have professed faith in the gospel but are seeking to be justified by law have implicitly shown that they consider Christ inadequate; thus, they have turned from grace to legalism (v. 4). Severed is too strong; better is "alienated" (NIV). Paul was not describing loss of salvation. Rather, he asserted that if they sought justification by law, they were not and could not be saved by grace. They would then be fallen, in the sense of leaving behind grace as a means of salvation, so that they would not be saved.

5:5–6. Contrary to the false approach described in vv. 2–4, Paul gave the proper approach. First, salvation does not require obedience to law; it is by the Spirit (cf. 3:2–3). It is not by works; it is by faith (cf. 2:16). Further, in Paul’s letters, first, righteousness is often a state of acceptance with God (e.g., Rm 3:22; 4:13; 10:5). Second, hope is often objective; that is, not a feeling but a thing hoped for (Ac 28:20; 2Co 3:12; Eph 1:18). Thus v. 5b can be rendered "we are waiting for the future hope that our present righteousness will grant us." Furthermore, Christian living does not require obedience to law. Thus circumcision as part of conversion to Judaism does not matter. What matters is faith—ongoing trust in Christ—expressed though love. While the NT often views love as an attitude or motivation (Rm 5:7–8; 1Co 4:21; 13:3), here Paul has in mind the other side of love: godly action (1Jn 3:18). Joseph Fitzmyer, in his comments on 1Co 13:1–3, defines love as "a spontaneous inward affection of one person for another that manifests itself in an outgoing concern for the other and impels one to self-giving" (First Corinthians, The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008], 489).

5:7. Paul made an appeal as in 3:1–5. While with them, the Galatians were following the proper course. Contrary to NASB, v. 7b does not necessarily speak of successful action by the legalists. Thus v. 7 could be better rendered, "While you were running well, who cut in on you so as to keep you from obeying the truth?"

5:8–10. The word persuasion, found only here in the NT, is not a neutral term and is better rendered "false rhetoric." Paul used the metaphor of leaven (v. 9; cf. 1Co 5:6) to refer to spreading error: If the legalist’s false teaching was left unchecked, it could permeate and harm the whole church. Although Paul had fears about the Galatians (3:1–5), he was sure that those who trusted the gospel would come to adopt his view. In Paul’s letters it is not uncommon to find serious concern and also confidence (cf. 2Co 7:16 vs. 11:3). Paul was unsure of the legalists’ identity (whoever), but sure of their judgment (v. 10).

5:11–12. As the legalists were disturbing the Galatians (v. 10), so also they were misrepresenting Paul. Apparently they asserted that, both before and after coming to Christ, Paul preached that circumcision was required. In fact, however, as a Christian, he preached only the cross. Proof of this is that he was persecuted by those who found the cross offensive (stumbling block).

Finally, Paul sarcastically dismissed the legalists as troublers. As with Jesus’ command in Mk 9:43–45, Paul’s words calling for legalists to mutilate themselves were not to be fulfilled literally. Rather they were meant to stir the Galatians to cut off relations with the legalists.

In this section Paul defended the gospel from the charge of lawlessness by correcting a possible misunderstanding: freedom from the law would lead to an ethical free-for-all. Paul maintained just the opposite: freedom from law (vv. 2–12) allows the Holy Spirit to provide both ethical guidance and power for godly living (vv. 13–21). This lifestyle is characterized by love and service (see 5:6). Paul said that freedom obligated them to serve one another, through love (v. 13). But where does love originate? It is produced as a fruit by the Holy Spirit; something the law could not do (5:6, 16–22; see 6:1–10 for specific expressions of love). Non-Christians cannot replicate such love because they lack the Spirit, are dominated by the sinful nature, and receive no help from the law. Instead, destructive conduct characterizes their relationships (5:17–21). Paul’s point was to underscore the futility of living by the law. The law could not save, nor could it lead one to growth in love and holiness.

Christians have ethical obligations; as Paul said elsewhere (cf. Rm 6:1–15), freedom from law does not mean an opportunity for the "sinful nature" (so NIV; better than NASB flesh; cf. Rm 7:5; 8:3–8). Flesh refers to a conglomeration of human traits that contribute to one’s disposition to sin (cf. the comments on Rm 7:5), the old sin nature. Even the believer still has the flesh (see Rm 8:12–13; 13:14), though he is no longer "in the flesh" (Rm 7:5). That is, he is no longer in the unsaved state under the absolute domination of the flesh as an unbeliever is)—just as he has a body descended from Adam though he is no longer "in Adam" (see the emphases on being "in" and "with" Christ in Rm 6:1–10). Rather than freedom underwriting licentiousness, properly used, it results in service to others. If one worries about respect for Law, one needs to hear that Christians are never said to "do" or "practice" the Law. Instead, when they love, they accomplish its real purpose (fulfilling it; cf. Rm 13:8–10), through the Spirit’s energizing work.

The comment in v. 15 reveals Paul’s assumption that the Galatians had strife. Therefore he warned them that, not only is service required, but also the lack thereof—selfishly harming others—is self-destructive.

5:16–17. Paul explained further: since God’s Spirit and the sinful nature (flesh) are opposed, following (walking by) the Spirit will ensure that one avoids sinful desire, however imperfect that avoidance might be. As in Gl 3:3, there is not a third option. Thus, 5:17c parallels Mt 6:24: one cannot serve two masters. Paul often used the verb walk, similar to OT idiom (e.g., Gn 5:24; 2Kg 20:3; Ps 1:1), to refer to a lifestyle (Rm 8:4; 1Co 3:3; Col 2:6; 1Th 2:12). Walk by the Spirit is an imperative with a promise. If one walks by the Spirit, then what logically follows from this is that one is not fulfilling the desires of the flesh. The imperative walk by the Spirit is based on the fact that "those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rm 8:14, NIV 1984) and "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gl 5:18). Believers can walk in the Spirit and not fulfill the lusts of the flesh precisely because of the fact that they have the Spirit. You will not carry out is actually an aorist-tense verb, and would be better translated "you are not ever going to carry out" the desire of the flesh. The verb indicates that Paul does not expect the child of God to be characterized by the flesh as an unbeliever is, because the Spirit is present and working in the believer’s life.

There are many spiritual realities that are "now and not yet" for the believer. We are adopted as God’s children (Rm 8:15) but await adoption as God’s children (Rm 8:23). We are dead to sin (Rm 6:2, 7) but must reckon that it is so (Rm 6:11). Likewise, Christians are led by and walk in the Spirit so that they are not typified by carrying out the desires of the flesh, but neither are they sinlessly perfect since they await the "not yet" of their full and future redemption and the "present evil age" is still exerting its influence. So, indeed, one could say the past (aorist) you will not carry out indicates that the believer’s life will not be typified, in any kind of a complete, undefined, global way, by fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

Flesh in 5:17–24 refers to a conglomeration of human traits that contribute to one’s disposition to sin, also known as "the old sin nature," traits that even a believer still has as a result of one’s descent from Adam, including culpable weakness and also rebellion. For the unbeliever, living according to the flesh is the only option. Both believers and unbelievers have the flesh, and both believers and unbelievers can do the kinds of things in 5:19–21. But if Paul does not expect the child of God to be characterized persistently by the flesh because the Spirit is present and is leading him, then there is a difference between a Christian sometimes doing these acts and an unbeliever practicing them (see v. 21b).

For (v. 17) provides the basis for Paul’s command in v. 16. There is an eschatological battle between the flesh and the Spirit. The believer must take sides on a daily basis ("walk by the Spirit," v. 16). One cannot serve two masters. And these two—the flesh and the Spirit—battle with this purpose in mind: so that you may not do the things that you please. That is, if the believer wants to walk in and be led by the Spirit, the flesh battles against this wish. If the believer wants to follow the flesh, the Spirit battles against this wish. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that the fight does not come to a draw. The Spirit does produce His fruit in believers.

5:18. But signals that there is hope in the midst of the conflict between the Spirit and the flesh. If believers are now part of the new covenant—and they are since they have the Spirit—then they are not under the enslaving, unhelpful law (see the comments on Rm 7:7–25, which deals with the powerlessness of the law to help an unbeliever defeat the power of sin). Since believers have divine resources available to them that the law did not provide, they can enter this conflict with considerable optimism. They walk in the Spirit, not under the law, so the flesh is at a disadvantage. And the Spirit leads, i.e., He takes the initiative in empowering and equipping the believer (you are led by the Spirit).

Verse 18 does not mean that following the Spirit will, at some point, result in being free from all law. Paul has made it clear that Christians are not under the law of Moses (see Rm 7:1–4; Gl 3:23–4:3). However, the NT believer is under the "law of Christ" (1Co 9:21; Gl 6:2; see comment on 6:1–2). Here law and Spirit denote the two covenantal options under which one might live and be governed, either the Mosaic Law or the new covenant grounded in the Spirit. The leading of the Spirit is an objective entailment of being converted, as is having one’s flesh crucified in 5:24 and being made alive by the Spirit in 5:25. The subjective side of this is the believer following the Spirit’s leading away from sin (5:18) and walking in the power of the Spirit (5:16). The law cannot provide such power and motivation for godly living.

5:19–21a. Now (v. 19) introduces practical considerations to assist the believer in fulfilling the command of 5:16. Paul was saying, "Let’s be clear: To fulfill this command, you need good theological, ethical, objective input. Walking by the Spirit means avoiding certain things, things that characterize the flesh. In case you wonder what they are, here is a representative list." The list contains matters bearing upon sexual morality (e.g., impurity: the defilement brought on by sexual sin; sensuality: unrestrained passion); spirituality (idolatry, sorcery [Gk. pharmakeia]: using magic in an attempt to manipulate people, demonic beings, perhaps even God, or drugs to induce euphoric religious experiences); relationships (e.g., enmities: various types of hostility; strife: contentiousness that causes divisions); and social sins (i.e., drunkenness, carousing: being on the prowl for sinful pleasure). Immorality (Gk. porneia) is a general term for any aberrant sexual activity including adultery, fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality (cf. Mt 5:32; Ac 15:20; 1Co 6:18). For other vice lists see Rm 1:29–31; 1Co 6:9–10. Paul’s inclusion of the phrase, and things like these, indicates he likely intended the list to be representative, not exhaustive.

5:21b. Paul repeated a solemn forewarning that he previously gave while with them: Those with a persistently ungodly lifestyle (practice) demonstrate that they are not currently in the present mystery form of the kingdom (Col 1:13; see the comments on Mt 13:10–17) and so will not inherit the future kingdom—that is, a place in the millennial kingdom and afterward eternal life (cf. 1Co 6:9–10; 15:50; Eph 5:5).

5:22–23a. The fruit image often refers to good works (Pr 8:19; Is 5:1–7; Jn 15:1–8), and does not imply passivity. Virtues can and should be actively pursued (e.g., 1Co 14:1; 2Tm 2:22; 1Pt 3:11). Paul used fruit imagery, however, to emphasize the Spirit’s role in the production of these virtues in a believer’s life. As we are active in following the Spirit, He, not the law, produces these and other virtues.

Paul’s list stresses character (e.g., patience: bearing with difficult people or situations while still maintaining one’s composure; self-control: being restrained, holding oneself back from acting on evil desires) and relationships (e.g., kindness: being gracious or generous; gentleness: using the least amount of force or power needed when dealing with people). As with 5:19–21, Paul likely intended the list to be representative, not exhaustive (cf. Col 3:12–15). Paul is not espousing works salvation here. These fruit(s) are expressed, however imperfectly, by every believer who has the Spirit indwelling him, and as such testify that the believer in question is destined for the kingdom.

5:23b. This phrase is rhetorical. As Paul said elsewhere (1Tm 1:8–9), law is needed to regulate the ungodly life. The virtuous—those described by vv. 22–23—go above requirements of law, and so are not obligated to live by it.

5:24. Flesh (see the comments on 5:16–18) belongs to the believer’s past (3:3; 5:17; cf. also Rm 7:5–6; 8:9–13). Although Paul often spoke of being crucified (passive) with Christ (e.g., Rm 6:6; 8:13; Gl 2:19; Col 3:5), the active verb here implies that the phrase crucified the flesh is a reference to repentance by a believer—i.e., forsaking the old life. Crucifying the flesh happens at conversion. Jesus was crucified, and believers are crucified with Him (see the comments on Rm 6:2–10). Therefore, in a sense, they have crucified the flesh. Though conversion is a one-time event, there is still the daily need for God’s people to consider themselves dead to sin (Rm 6:11). If there is a tension here—and there is—then it is similar to Rm 6. We have died with Christ (Rm 6:2) (a statement of fact) and we are to consider ourselves dead (Rm 6:11, a command). The crucifixion of the flesh in Gl 5 is the theological equivalent of dying to sin in Rm 6. The flesh was crucified (that is, we died to sin) when we were converted. Paul used the active verb have crucified because he wanted the readers to see that this was a real part of their salvation, that their faith in Christ resulted in this crucifixion. The absolute power of the flesh was broken when they trusted Christ for salvation. This should provide great encouragement in the conflict against the flesh.

5:25–26. To live by the Spirit is to have new life—the equivalent of salvation. We could paraphrase 25a this way: "Since the Spirit has made us alive.…" It naturally follows that if the Spirit gave life, we should follow (walk by) Him. To follow Him entails forsaking fleshly habits (e.g., being boastful, envying).

This section gives more guidance as to what walking by the Spirit looks like. There is movement back and forth between responsibility for oneself (e.g., vv. 1b, 3, 7–8) and responsibility for others (vv. 1a, 2, 6).

6:1–2. All are susceptible to temptation. Thus gentle and circumspect restoration is the proper response when, through weakness, someone falls into sin (trespass). At times life’s hardships (burdens: a heavy weight, whether literal or figurative; Gk: bare; cf. Mt 20:12; Ac 15:28; Rv 2:24) are too hard to endure alone. The gospel involves self-sacrifice for the benefit of those who are weak (Rm 5:6; cf. Ac 20:35). Thus for Christians to imitate such behavior, they follow the law of Christ (cf. 1Co 9:21). This phrase could refer to the principle by which Jesus Himself lived, to the love command as summary of all law (Lv 19:18; Mt 22:39; Rm 13:8–10), or to the teachings of Jesus as a new Torah that replaces the law of Moses. These three overlap, so one need not make sharp distinctions. The last view seems more likely, however, since Paul knew Jesus’ teaching well, and he set up the law of Christ as a contrast to the law of Moses.

6:3. A great hindrance to the love portrayed in v. 2 is a conceit in which one falsely thinks he is superior to others in their weaknesses.

6:4–5. To help prevent the conceit warned of in v. 3, one should examine (dokimazo, test, prove; cf. 1Co 11:28; 2Co 8:8; Php 1:10; 1Tm 3:10) oneself, but only for the sake of self-evaluation, and not to compare oneself to another. This self-reflection is called for since each person is responsible for oneself (his or her own load, Gk. phortion; cf. Mt 11:30; 23:4; Ac 27:10).

6:6. As Paul said elsewhere (1Co 9:3–14; 1Tm 5:17–18; cf. Mt 10:10), the one who teaches has the right to economic support. Supporting teachers of God’s word is a way to help bear their "burdens" (v. 2). Paul often used the share word group (koinoneo, koinonia) to refer to economic partnership (Rm 12:13; 15:27; 2Co 9:13; Php 4:15; 1Tm 6:18). The people of God have an obligation to provide adequate remuneration for those who dedicate their lives to the ministry of the Word of God.

6:7–8. The proverb about sowing and reaping (cf. Ps 126:5; Pr 22:8; Hs 10:12–13; 2Co 9:6; Jms 3:18) reminds us that actions have causes and consequences. To ignore this cause-effect relationship is to mock God. As with 5:17, there are only two paths: flesh/corruption, Spirit/eternal life. The word corruption (phthora) can refer to literal decay (1Co 15:42; Col 2:22), to moral evils like lust (2Pt 1:4), or in this case to the eternal destruction of hell (2Pt 2:12). Sowing to one’s own flesh includes such things as attempting salvation by works (3:2a) including circumcision (5:2), the evil deeds of the flesh (5:19–21), envy (5:26), and conceit (6:3) to name a few. Sowing to the Spirit includes such things as faith (3:2b), standing in freedom (5:1), the fruit of Spirit (5:22–23), bearing burdens (6:2), and providing economic support for those who teach the word in the church (6:6). If believers sow to the flesh, they will, in this life, reap the kind of moral decay Paul described, though their eternal destiny will remain intact.

6:9–10. Only God’s timing determines when the fruit will come from our labor. On the human side there is need for perseverance (to not lose heart). While good should be done to all, Paul placed a higher priority on generously meeting the needs of other believers (the household of faith; cf. 1Co 3:9–17; Eph 2:19–22; 1Tm 3:15). While social justice causes are important, the priority must be given to caring for those in the body of Christ.

Paul typically used a scribe to write for him (cf. Rm 16:22), but often appended greetings in his own handwriting (e.g., 1Co 16:21; 2Th 3:17). While large letters may be an indirect reference to a vision problem (cf. 4:15; 2Co 12:7), it is more likely that they draw attention to this closing.

Those misleading the Galatians had motives that were merely external (in the flesh), prideful (boast), and selfish (avoiding being persecuted). One the one hand, they had some belief in Jesus as Messiah and they welcomed Gentiles to trust Him. On the other hand, they required circumcision and fell short in their own obedience to Law (cf. Rm 2:17–24; 3:23; 8:3). It appears, then, that they wanted to boast about gaining the Galatians as converts to Judaism and so avoid persecution from Jews who rejected the concept of a crucified Messiah.

Here is sharp contrast. As in Php 3:4–6, Paul asserted that mere externals—circumcision or the lack thereof—mean nothing. Instead, for Paul the cross—a shameful means of torture and execution—was a cause for boasting. It brought two things: a decisive break from worldly perspectives (world … crucified to me) and real spiritual life (new creation; cf. 2Co 5:17).

The rule is the truth of v. 15 and to walk by it is the equivalent of walking by the Spirit (5:16). The phrase the Israel of God is found only here in the NT (but see Ps 125:5) and probably refers to those ethnic Israelites who will come to believe in Messiah throughout the Church Age. The phrase is almost universally viewed as proving that the Church replaces Israel in God’s program, or that the Church is the New Israel. But the statement is brief enough that it is unlikely to be able to bear this much theological freight. On this issue, Robert L. Saucy writes,

In addition, several other factors suggest that the Israel of God refers to believing Jews. First, taking this as a special blessing for messianic Jews fits the normal syntax of the Greek copulative kai as a continuative or conjunctive usage (a simple "and" or "and also"). Paul would be blessing those "who follow this standard and the Israel of God." This is the most normal way to translate the conjunction. To see this as referring to the Church requires an unusual use of kai, translating the word as an explicative ("even"). Then the translation would be a blessing upon those "who follow this standard, even the Israel of God." S. Lewis Johnson correctly notes, "We should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense" ("Paul and the Israel of God" in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer [Chicago: Moody, 1986], 187).

A second argument is based on the meaning and referent of the word "Israel." Of the 73 usages, this would be the only one that would not refer to physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is unlikely that Paul decided to use the word in a "spiritual" sense when every other time he used it as literally referring to the people of Israel. It is sometimes argued that "Israel" in Rm 9:6 or 11:26 refers to the Church as the spiritual Israel, but see the comments there.

Third, understanding the "Israel of God" to refer to the faithful Jewish remnant would fit the context in a far better way. At the end of the epistle, having rebuked those who were demanding circumcision in addition to faith as a requirement for justification before God, Paul certainly wanted to bless everyone in Galatia who supported his teaching. Since some might have viewed Paul’s sharp rebuke as attacking all Jewish believers, Paul added a specific blessing. This one was not just for those who accepted his teaching, but also for the Jewish believers who agreed with him. They were "the Israel of God," the loyal Jewish remnant of Israel (Johnson, "Paul and the Israel of God," 192).

As an appeal to his authority and dedicated service, Paul called the scars he acquired from ministry (cf. 2Co 11:23–30) marks (Gk. stigma; only here in NT) that show he was owned by Jesus. Throughout the letter grace and legalism are starkly contrasted (e.g., 1:6–9, 14–16; 2:15–16; 3:1–5). Just as Paul began with the letter with a prayer for grace (1:3), so here he ended likewise (cf. 1Co 16:23; 2Co 13:14; Php 4:23).