Galatians

INTRODUCTION

Not many books have made such a lasting impression on human minds as Paul’s letter to the Galatians, nor have many done so much to shape the history of the Western world. This letter has been called the “Magna Carta of Christian liberty,” for it maintains that only through the grace of God received through faith in Jesus Christ can a person escape the curse of sin and of the law and live a new life, not in bondage or license, but in a genuine freedom of mind and spirit through the power of God. This theme was the cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation. Luther especially loved Galatians, and in his hands it became a mighty weapon in the Reformation arsenal. The thesis of Galatians is no less important for our time.

1. The Historical Setting and Content of Galatians

In the decade or so surrounding the year A.D. 50, the infant church was drifting almost unnoticeably toward its first great doctrinal crisis. When the Gospel was being preached primarily to Jews by Jews, the development of the church progressed smoothly. But as the ambassadors of Christ pushed out into largely Gentile communities and the Gospel began to take root there, questions arose regarding a Christian’s relationship to the law of Moses and to Judaism as a system. Was the church to open her doors wide to all comers, regardless of their relationship to the particularized traditions of Judaism? Or was she to be only an extension of Judaism to the Gentiles? In more particular terms, was it necessary for a Gentile believer to observe the law of Moses in order to become a Christian? Must a Gentile be circumcised?

Galatians is a record of the form this struggle took in one area of Asia Minor. But it is also a reflection of the way in which the issue was being debated and handled in Jerusalem and at Antioch in Syria. Acts supplements this information. Was it right for Gentile and Jewish Christians to have mutual fellowship by eating together? For a time, debate seemed to move in a direction destructive of Christian unity and of the survival of the Gospel of grace, but Paul almost single-handedly withstood this trend and turned the tide. At Jerusalem the question was taken up formally in council, and Paul’s approach was upheld (Ac 15:1–29).

As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul deliberately did not bring up questions of conformity to Jewish law when presenting the Gospel in non-Jewish communities. He had followed this practice in Galatia on both occasions when he had preached there (cf. 4:13). To him, salvation is never to be achieved by conformity to rules and regulations, even if God-given, for law condemns. Consequently, salvation for sinners must come in another way—through Jesus Christ, who died for sin. Now God offers righteousness freely to all who put their trust in him.

Paul had taught this Gospel to the Galatians, and it had been well received. He had been detained in Galatia unexpectedly because of a repulsive illness, but instead of rebuffing him, the Galatians actually embraced both him and the Gospel willingly (4:13–15). These former pagans (4:8) were baptized (3:27) and received the Holy Spirit, who began to work miracles among them (3:5). After establishing churches in Galatia, Paul moved on.

Some time later, however, Paul received word that the Galatian believers were on the point of departing from the faith they had previously received so openly. Conservative Jewish teachers who were legalizers had arrived from Jerusalem claiming to be from James, the Lord’s brother, and had begun to teach that Paul was wrong in his doctrine. They contended that Gentiles had to obey the law of Moses to be saved. To the grace of Christ must be added circumcision.

Paul was immediately filled with righteous indignation. He saw in a moment that if their views prevailed, grace and the cross of Jesus Christ would be emptied of all value (5:2–4). Moreover, Christianity would soon lose its distinctive character and become little more than a minor sect of Judaism. Thus Paul wrote this letter to reprove legalism and regain the Galatian churches.

It is evident that Paul had heard of three distinct charges made by his Jewish opponents. (1) One was directed against Paul personally. He had been called by Christ as an apostle and had preached those doctrines that Christ had revealed to him. Now enemies were saying that he was not a genuine apostle and that the Gospel he preached had not been revealed by God. Paul had not lived with Jesus when Jesus was here on earth, as had the “true” apostles. He was not one of the Twelve. Actually, they asserted, he was merely an evangelist who, after he had received some knowledge of Christianity, turned to his own devices and, in order to please the Gentiles, taught an easy gospel opposed to that of the apostolic model (1:10). They said that Paul must teach as the disciples taught or be rejected.

Paul answers these accusations by retelling the story of his life, particularly as it was related to the other apostles (chs. 1–2). (a) His apostolic teaching is not dependent on other human authorities, for it came directly from God. (b) His authority had been acknowledged by the other apostles on each occasion on which they had come into contact. (c) He had proved his worth by remaining firm at Antioch when others, including even Peter and Barnabas, had wavered. Paul was therefore able to assert his own authority as an apostle without diminishing either the authority or reputation of those who were apostles before him.

(2) Another charge, closely related to the first, was that his Gospel was not the true gospel. Obviously, if Paul was a “false” apostle, his teaching could not be true teaching. He taught that the law could be set aside, but this was wrong, the legalizers said. God’s law is eternal and it can never be set aside. All who have ever been saved have been saved by keeping the law. Moreover, it is perfectly evident from all that is known of the life of Jesus that Jesus himself kept the law. Who, then, was Paul to dismiss the requirements of the law for salvation?

Paul answers this charge by showing that the issue is not one of who does or does not keep the law, but rather of the true basis on which God reckons a sinful person righteous. At this point of his letter (chs. 3–4) Paul appeals both to the personal experience of the Galatians and to Scripture, showing, primarily from the case of Abraham, that God accounts a person righteous on the basis of faith rather than works. This imputed righteousness does not come from either the law or circumcision, for God had declared Abraham righteous on the basis of faith years before either was given.

(3) The opponents of Paul also charged that the Gospel he preached led to loose living. By stressing the law, Judaism had stressed morality. Jews looked down on Gentile sin and excesses. But what would happen if the law should be taken away? Clearly, lawlessness and immorality would increase, the legalizers argued.

Paul replies that this is not true (chs. 5–6). Christianity does not lead believers away from the law into nothingness. Rather, it leads them to Jesus Christ, who, in the person of the Holy Spirit, comes to live within them and furnishes them with a new nature that alone is capable of doing what God desires. The change is internal. So it is from within rather than without that the Holy Spirit produces the fruit that is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (5:22–23). Life in the Spirit is free from either legalism or license. It is true freedom—a freedom to serve God fully.

2. Who Were the Galatians?

There would seem to be few difficulties in relating a book with such a clear message to its time. But this is not true of Galatians. In fact, from the historian’s point of view, few NT books contain so many problems. We do not know for certain when the letter was written, where it was written, or even (which is a more serious problem) to whom it was written. Each of these questions has been the subject of intense scholarly debate.

The word “Galatians” has two basic meanings. It has an ethnic meaning. The first people who became known as Galatians came from the barbarian tribe known in France as the Gauls, some of whom had invaded Macedonia and later northern Asia Minor (third century B.C.). Their region became known as Galatia; its principal cities were Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium.

The second meaning is a political one. The Romans conquered the Galatians in 189 B.C., though they were permitted to maintain much of their independence and to be governed in part by their own princes. This system worked so well that in 25 B.C., their territory was incorporated into a much larger Roman province to which the old ethnic name, Galatia, was extended. This province contained the districts of Lycaonia and Isauria as well as portions of Pisidia and Phrygia. In particular, the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra—cities Paul visited on his first missionary journey—belonged to it.

To the Christians in which of these two areas did Paul write? Or, to state the question another way, in what sense does Paul use the name “Galatia”? Until the eighteenth century, no commentator ever seriously disputed the idea that Paul’s letter was written to Christians living in northern (ethnic) Galatia, even though Acts does not record Paul’s having founded churches in this area (but cf. Ac 16:6; 18:23). In the last century, however, beginning with William Ramsay, scholars questioned whether Paul ever visited northern Galatia at all and argued that he wrote this letter to Christians in the southern area of the Roman province, i.e., to Christians living in those cities Paul had visited on his first missionary journey. A number of impressive arguments were raised in support of this position (the south Galatia theory).

1. According to Acts, Paul did have a missionary journey in southern Galatia. Since he tended to go where there were major cities and since ethnic Galatia had few such cities, it seems unlikely that Paul did mission work there. Furthermore, during his second missionary journey, after revisiting churches in southern Galatia, Paul, Silas, and Timothy headed north but were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach either in Asia to the south or Bithynia to the north (Ac 16:6–7). Thus they ended up in Troas, where they encountered an open door before them into Greece. On this journey they would have had to take a most unlikely detour of about three hundred miles over rugged terrain to get to ethnic Galatia and preach there. If Paul did in fact establish a series of important churches in north Galatia, it would be unusual for Luke to neglect to say so.

2. Paul in his letters tends to use provincial, not ethnic, names—e.g., Macedonia (2Co 8:1), Asia (1Co 16:19), and Achaia (2Co 1:1). He also speaks of Judea, Syria, and Cilicia, but never of Lycaonia, Pisidia, Mysia, and Lydia (which are not names of Roman provinces). Thus the presumption that he is using the political rather than the ethnic meaning for Galatia is strong.

3. We know of no churches at all in northern Asia Minor at this early date, either mentioned in the NT or outside it, and what information we do have seems to point to the establishing of churches much later than Paul’s time. By contrast, we do have a record of the founding of the strong, important churches of the southern region, into which all that Paul tells us about his initial preaching to the Galatians fits nicely.

4. It is more natural to suppose that the legalistic party would have pursued Paul first in the southern region of Galatia, where Paul had early established churches, than that they bypassed these bastions of “Paulinism” in order to push north to less important strongholds. We know from Acts that Paul did meet with Jewish opposition in southern Galatia. It seems most natural, therefore, that the legalists would first go there if Jews in any sizeable number were turning from Judaism to Christianity.

5. In writing to the Galatians, Paul mentions Barnabas several times without bothering to explain who he is (2:1, 9, 13), so presumably he is known to the Galatians. Since Barnabas accompanied Paul only on the first missionary journey, to southern Galatia, nothing but an identification of the Galatians with Christians in the cities of the south seems possible.

6. Paul argues that he did not give place to the legalizers at the council in Jerusalem even for an hour, so that “the truth of the gospel might remain with you [i.e., with the Galatians].” In other words, Paul must already have preached to the Galatians by the time of the conference, i.e., on his first missionary journey, which involved southern (but not northern) Galatia.

While the south Galatia theory has captured the attention of a majority of scholars today (and that is the position adopted in this commentary), there still are those who hold to a north Galatia theory. Their arguments are as follows:

1. Luke never refers to those living in the cities of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch as Galatians when he describes Paul’s work there. It is strange to think that he is not, therefore, still using geographical terminology when he refers to Paul passing through Galatia in Ac 16:6–7.

2. Paul assumes in his letter that all, or at least most, of the Galatians are Gentiles. This does not seem to fit conditions in the south, which had a large Jewish population. Moreover, if the churches of Galatia contained many Jews, it is hard to see how a later drifting into Judaism by Paul’s converts could have occurred, particularly in a manner that seems to have surprised him. The issue of a Christian’s relationship to the law of Moses would certainly have had to be faced from the start.

3. Paul’s account of his work in Galatia does not tally with what Luke tells us of Paul’s work in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch; for example, there is no reference to his illness (Gal 4:13). So Paul must be speaking of another area.

In spite of these arguments, the weight of probability now lies on the side of the south Galatia hypothesis.

3. The Jerusalem Council

Another problem is which visit to Jerusalem Paul is referring to in 2:1–10. In Acts, Luke records three visits of Paul to Jerusalem prior to his final visit in Ac 21:17ff.: a visit shortly after his conversion (Ac 9:26–30), a “famine visit” (Ac 11:27–30), and a visit for the church council that decided the issue of Gentile adherence to the law (Ac 15). Paul, however, records only two visits to Jerusalem, the second of which seems to fit better with Luke’s third visit than with the second. Consequently we must either identify Paul’s second visit with Luke’s second (with obvious difficulties involved) or with Luke’s third—and then explain why Paul neglected to mention the second in writing to the Galatians. On the surface this neglect is difficult to understand, simply because Paul seems to be chronicling all contacts with the Jerusalem apostles in order to refute the charges of the legalizers.

In the opinion of this writer, the case for identifying the Jerusalem visit of Gal 2:1–10 with the council meeting of Ac 15 is strongest, above all because of the striking coincidence of circumstances. In both accounts, communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch. The false brethren have their headquarters in the first city but cause trouble in the second. Also, in both accounts, Paul and Barnabas apparently go to Jerusalem from Antioch and return to Antioch after the council. The participants at the council are the same: the legalizers who are causing the trouble, Paul and Barnabas who represent the church at Antioch, and the Jerusalem apostles, primarily Peter and James. The subject of dispute is the same. Finally, the results are essentially the same, for in each case, the victory goes to Paul.

There are, however, obvious difficulties in linking Gal 2 with Ac 15. First, there are apparent discrepancies. Acts gives the impression that Paul and Barnabas presented their case publicly before an assembled council of apostles and elders, but Galatians tells of a private meeting in which the dispute seems to be resolved between a small group of those who were considered leaders. Galatians says Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, while Acts does not mention Titus. Finally, in Galatians Paul writes that he and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem by revelation, whereas in Acts Luke indicates that they were delegated by the leaders of the church in Antioch.

Although discrepancies should not be passed over lightly, it is not difficult to see how they may be resolved. Every great public meeting is accompanied by private meetings. Titus is not mentioned by Luke because he did not become an issue, which is precisely the point Paul makes in Galatians (Gal 2:3). And concerning how Paul was sent to Jerusalem, a “revelation” is simply an alternate way of telling what happened, since the church at Antioch undoubtedly prayed about who their representatives should be and believed that they were responding to God in commissioning Paul and Barnabas.

More serious is the failure of Paul to mention the decrees of the council. Wouldn’t he have appealed to the council if, at the time of writing Galatians, he held such a trump card in his hand? Not necessarily. First, the decrees were not as significant as this line of arguing implies. They were addressed to “the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia” to start with, not to Gentiles throughout the whole Roman world. Second, the decrees were a compromise. They freed the Gentiles from adherence to the law, but they added certain restrictions for conscience’ sake. Paul could very well have agreed with the decrees at the time they were devised but later, when writing to the Galatians, considered the restrictions a dangerous concession likely to be misunderstood. Finally, in quoting the decrees Paul would seem to be conceding the very thing his enemies were insisting on—i.e., the authority of the Jerusalem apostles as greater than his own. In any case, Paul shows that the other apostles did agree with him regarding circumcision and actually supported him.

But if Gal 2:1–10 refers to the council of Ac 15, why does Paul not mention the famine visit of Ac 11? It is impossible to say exactly why, but there may be an explanation in the historical circumstances. The time of the famine visit was a time of turmoil and political agitation against the apostles, in which James the son of Zebedee was killed by Herod and Peter was imprisoned (Ac 12). Because of that, it seems likely that every Christian of any rank had fled the city. In fact, Luke mentions that the money for famine relief was delivered into the hands of “the elders,” not the apostles. Furthermore, that dangerous time was not an opportune occasion for discussing so momentous an issue as Gentile adherence to the law and to circumcision.

Finally, one should note that Paul’s main goal in Galatians is not giving a full account of all his activities but answering specific criticisms directed against him by the legalizers. The first criticism is that he got his Gospel from others; Paul answers this by showing that in the early years he was not influenced by the Jerusalem apostles at all—either before, during, or after his conversion (see ch. 1). On the other hand, Paul was not preaching something different from the Gospel preached by the other apostles, as the legalists had also maintained (see ch. 2). Neither of these issues was relevant in the famine visit.

4. Date and Authorship

Adopting the south Galatia theory and the identity of Gal 2:1–10 and Ac 15, the earliest the letter could have been written is A.D. 49 (the date for the council in Jerusalem). Since Paul does not appear to be in prison while writing this letter, the latest date it could have been written is A.D. 58, when he was arrested in Jerusalem. Within these limits there are roughly eight or nine years in which Paul made two missionary journeys and during which the letter could have been written. This range can be narrowed somewhat by assuming that Paul had visited the Galatians twice before writing to them, once on the first missionary journey and once as he was setting out on the second (cf. Gal 4:13); in that case, Galatians must have been written after Paul’s arrival at Corinth on his second journey (A.D. 50).

Galatians has almost universally been accepted as a genuine letter of Paul. He is mentioned as the author in 1:1 and in 5:2, and the entire letter from beginning to end breathes such an intensely personal autobiographical tone that only a genuine historical situation involving the true founder of the Gentile mission within the church accounts for it. Since very early in the history of the church, Galatians was included in canonical lists as a letter of Paul.

EXPOSITION

Introduction (1:1–10)

A. Salutation (1:1–5)

Most ancient letters, Paul’s included, opened with a salutation containing the author’s name, the name of those to whom he is writing, and an expression of good wishes. But Paul’s opening remarks also generally breathe something of the content and tone of the letter or, at the very least, employ explicitly Christian terms as greetings. Galatians follows this pattern, beginning with the writer’s name, the name of the recipients, and a wish for grace and peace on their behalf. But there are a brevity and vigor of expression that immediately plunge the reader into the heart of the letter, reflecting Paul’s concern. Most surprisingly, there is no expression of praise for these churches, a normal procedure in his other letters. In these few verses the three major themes of the letter—the source of his authority, the doctrine of grace, and the promise of full deliverance from sin’s power—are tied together in a way that relates all to the sovereign and gracious will of God.

1 By adding the word “apostle” (GK 693) Paul at once highlights his claim to be commissioned by Jesus to preach the Gospel with authority and to plant Christianity. It was this commission that was being challenged by the Galatian legalizers. Greek-speaking Jews had used the word “apostle” for authorized representatives. With the coming of Christ, Christians applied it to those commissioned by Christ as authoritative bearers of the Gospel.

It would seem from Ac 1:21–26 that two major prerequisites for being an apostle were: (1) to have been an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry from the time of the baptism by John up to and including the resurrection, and (2) to have been chosen for the office by the risen Lord. At first the number of those so commissioned was twelve (Matthias was chosen to replace Judas), but there is no indication either in Acts or elsewhere that the number was always so limited. Paul obviously claimed to have fulfilled the conditions as the result of his Damascus experience; and Luke, who clearly endorses Paul’s claim, also speaks of Barnabas as having this office (cf. also James, the Lord’s brother, implied in 1Co 15:7; Silas and Timothy in 1Th 2:7, cf. 1:1).

The difficulty that Paul’s enemies saw was not in the number twelve, but rather that Paul did not meet the proper conditions. They could claim that he had never met Jesus, and he had certainly had not been an eyewitness of Christ’s ministry. They could claim too that he had never received a commission, at least not like the formal and official action when Matthias was chosen. Paul answered by entirely overlooking the matter of his not being an eyewitness of Christ’s earthly ministry, though undoubtedly he considered his Damascus experience to be the equivalent of this, and by denying that his status required a human decision. Instead, Paul claimed that his apostleship came to him directly from and through God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in his experience on the Damascus road. His reference to the resurrection stresses the important point that it was the risen and glorified Lord of the church who commissioned him.

2 From Paul’s normal habit of including the names of his fellow missionaries at the beginning of his letters, it would appear that “the brothers” mentioned here are his fellow missionaries, though their actual identity cannot be known for sure. The interesting point is that Paul does not name these fellow missionaries, as he does elsewhere, not wanting to give the impression that his Gospel requires additional support. It was, after all, received directly from God. At the same time, he wishes to remind the Galatians that the Gospel that had been preached to them, far from being a Pauline oddity, is actually the received doctrine of all the Christian church and its missionaries.

3 Paul’s nearly standard formula of Christian blessing and greeting seems particularly appropriate at the start of this letter. Normally, Paul alters the traditional Greek greeting (chairein) to the important Christian word “grace” (charis; GK 5921). This is always striking, but it is doubly striking here, inasmuch as it occurs in a letter to churches where the sufficiency of salvation by grace was being questioned and perhaps even denied. In the same way, “peace” (eirene; GK 1645), the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew greeting shalom (GK 8934), is appropriate, for it denotes that state of favor and well-being into which people are brought by Christ’s death on the cross and in which they are kept by God’s persevering grace. To choose law, as the Galatians were doing, is to fall from grace. To live by works is to lose the peace with God that was purchased for believers by Christ’s atonement (cf. Ro 5:1).

Paul characteristically joins the names of the Father and Son together in the statement that they are the source of grace and peace (cf. Jn 17:21). But inverting the order, as he does here (from v.1 to v.3), heightens the effect.

4 To the doctrines of the Christian faith already stated in germinal form—the source of authority in religion, the person and character of God, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, grace, and peace—Paul now adds a statement affirming the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ and its outcome in delivering humankind from sin. All this, he asserts, is according to the “will” (GK 2525) of the Father. It is hard to imagine a statement better calculated to oppose any intrusion of human will or merits in the matter of attaining salvation. This phrase, unique here in Paul’s greetings, is undoubtedly added for the sake of the erring Christians in Galatia.

Salvation that began in the eternal will of God (cf. Ro 9:16) led to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, who died as a substitute for sinners. Paul then articulates the goal of his death: to “rescue us from the present evil age.” The word “rescue” (GK 1975) implies a “rescue from the power of.” Thus, it strikes the keynote of the latter, ethical section of the letter, beginning in ch. 5. Believers are not rescued out of the present evil world (though that will also be true eventually), but from the power of evil and the values of the present world-system through the power of the risen Christ within the Christian.

5 Paul does not usually include a doxology at the beginning of a letter, but the doxology here serves an important purpose. It sets the Gospel, centering in the preeminence of the Lord Jesus Christ and his work, above any human criticism or praise. The fact that the glory of God and the giving of glory to God will last forever contrasts markedly with “the present evil age,” which is passing away (cf. 1Co 7:31; Eph 2:2–7).

B. The Reason for the Letter (1:6–9)

At this point Paul would normally introduce an expression of praise for the Christians of the church to which he is writing. Instead, there is an abrupt and indignant cry of astonishment at what seems to be happening among the Galatians. Paul had delivered to them the one Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and they had received it. But now, according to reports that had come to him, he has reason to believe that the Christians of Galatia are turning from this Gospel to embrace something that was no gospel at all, but only legalism. Paul pronounces a judgment upon any who would pervert this one Gospel of salvation by grace.

6 The agitation Paul feels is shown by the tone and vocabulary of these verses. But his words also show why he is so stirred. (1) The Galatians are “deserting” (GK 3572) the one who had called them to faith in Christ Jesus. The Greek word used here can be used of military revolt as well as of a change of attitude. Their revolt was not the result of outside influences, but something they were freely doing to themselves. The only ray of hope is that they were still in the process of deserting and could possibly be reclaimed.

(2) There is a tragic personal element in the way Paul describes their desertion. They are not just departing from an idea or a movement but from a person, from God the Father who had called them to faith. Embracing legalism means rejecting God, because it means substituting a human being for God in one’s life. It is noteworthy that once again Paul reiterates the true nature of the Gospel: (a) it is of God, who does the calling, and (b) it is of “grace” rather than of merit.

(3) Paul is also agitated because the Galatians were deserting God and the Christian faith “so quickly,” that is, so soon after their conversion.

(4) By embracing legalism the Galatians have actually turned their back on the Gospel in order to embrace “a different gospel,” which, however, does not even deserve to be called by that name.

7 Paul now wants to explain or correct his phrase, “a different gospel.” If left without any comment, that phrase might suggest that there are various gospels from which a Christian may choose. This is the opposite of what Paul is saying. So he adds that actually there cannot be another Gospel besides the one that describes God’s way of salvation in Christ. The Gospel is one, and any system of salvation that varies from it is counterfeit.

For the first time now Paul mentions the false teachers, though not by name, presumably because he does not want anyone to think his remarks were originating from a dislike of certain personalities rather than from concern for the truth. He objects to two aspects of the conduct of these teachers: (1) they were perverting the Gospel, and (2) they were troubling the church. These two always go together.

8 The logical objection to the message Paul had been preaching is that it was not actually the Gospel, but only the gospel of Paul. If that is so, then the Galatians must evaluate the source of the teaching they had received, taking into account that the legalizers were the official representatives of the Jerusalem apostles, while Paul was not. Paul wards off this accusation, arguing that ultimately the human source does not matter, nor would it matter even if the source were an “angelic” one. Satan can disguise himself as “an angel of light,” as can his ministers (2Co 11:14–15). So the Galatians must learn to evaluate their teachers, and they must learn that any attempt to alter the true Gospel is culpable and that any who go about teaching another gospel will be condemned.

Paul vehemently denounces those who teach another gospel, using the strong word anathema (GK 356), a word semantically related to the Hebrew word herem (GK 3051) and used of that which is devoted to God, usually for destruction. In spiritual terms it means “damnation.” Paul is not venting his anger here, for he is impartial in his judgment and mentions no names. He even includes himself in the ban, should he do otherwise in his preaching than he has done thus far. Moreover, he is universal in his judgment; his words include “anybody” who should so teach.

How can it be otherwise? If the Gospel Paul preaches is true, then both the glory of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the human race are at stake. If people can be saved by works, Christ has died in vain (Gal 2:21); the cross is emptied of meaning. If people are taught a false gospel, they are being led from the one thing that can turn them away from destruction (cf. Mt 18:6).

9 No doubt Paul repeats the anathema primarily for the sake of emphasis. But the restatement involves three alterations that tie it more closely to the situation in Galatia: (1) “The one we preached” is changed to “what you accepted”; (2) the element of improbability is lessened—“we or an angel from heaven” being changed to “anybody”; and (3) the thought of future possibility—“if we . . . should preach”—is replaced by present supposition.

C. Transition (1:10)

10 Before Paul moves to state his first important thesis (vv.11–12), he makes a brief transition. He had been accused of being a people-pleaser by his enemies, who no doubt also implied that he was such at the expense of the truth (cf. 2Co 10; Gal 6:12). Would his enemies dare to say this now, Paul asks, after he has written so sharply? Do people-pleasers pronounce anathemas against those who teach false gospels?

It is important to point out that Paul’s words cannot be used to justify the belligerent and fault-finding attitude so often found among religious crusaders. For one thing, Paul did strive to please people sometimes (1Co 9:19–22), though not where the Gospel was at stake; he is merely saying here that he did not please people as opposed to pleasing God. Furthermore, the word “now” gives a limited sense to this verse, as if he were saying: “Have I made myself clear enough about Christ’s Gospel? Can anyone now charge that I seek to please people in presenting it?”

The incongruity of charging Paul with being a people-pleaser is strengthened by the following sentence, in which Paul mentions being “a servant of Christ.” Jesus had said, “No one can serve two masters” (Mt 6:24). Thus, when faced with the necessity of making a choice, Paul would choose to stand with Christ, not with other people. The choice of the word “servant” (lit., “slave”; GK 1528) is interesting because this letter is about freedom. It is an early indication of the paradoxical teaching that real freedom is to be found in bondage—bondage to Christ.

1. Paul’s Defense of His Apostleship (1:11–2:21)

A. Thesis: Paul’s Gospel Received Directly From God (1:11–12)

With these two verses the reader comes to Paul’s first important thesis. He has spoken of the Gospel (vv.6–9), stating clearly that there is only one Gospel. But certain questions might be asked: “Why should your Gospel be normative, Paul? Why not another gospel? Or if it is true that there can be only one gospel, why should not some entirely different teaching be normative?” In his answer, Paul stresses the divine origin of his teaching, having been received by him directly from God. Throughout the rest of chs. 1–2 Paul defends this thesis by appealing to his own religious experience.

11 The verb introducing this verse means “to make clear,” “to certify” (GK 1192), and has the effect of suggesting that a somewhat formal statement will follow, as indeed it does. Just as v.1 advanced Paul’s claim to apostleship by denying alleged inadequate sources for that apostleship and affirming the true one, so this section denies inadequate sources for the gospel, while affirming that what Paul preached came directly from God by revelation.

Paul goes on to deny three possible sources for his teaching. First, it was not “something that man made up.” This is patently true, for the centrality of a cross and a resurrection do not figure in man-made religion. People seem always to prefer what flatters them and affirms human goodness, not what judges them.

12 Paul also denies that his teaching was received “from any man.” This is a different denial from that in v.11, for both “from” and “receive” (GK 4161) refer to the transmission of established religious teaching from one person to another. Paul uses the verb in this sense in 1Co 15:1, 3 to indicate that the basic facts of Christ’s life—his death, burial, and resurrection—were received by him and passed on intact to his hearers. Important as this type of transmission may be, however, this was simply not the way Paul received his message.

Finally, Paul adds that he was not “taught” (GK 1438) the Gospel either. Instruction was not the channel through which he came to the truth. This may be the way the vast majority of Christians receive the Gospel, including the Galatians, since Paul had himself instructed them. But it was not the way Paul himself had received the truth.

He now asserts the positive side of his thesis, saying that the Gospel came to him by “revelation” (GK 637), an unexpected unfolding of what had been a secret—a distinctive experience paralleled only by that of those who were apostles before him. The Gospel that was revealed to Paul is unique, precisely because its source was not Paul but God himself. And Christians value it properly only when they make it an integral part of their lives and share it with others.

B. Paul’s Personal History (1:13–24)

1. Paul’s early years and conversion (1:13–17)

Paul has written that his Gospel did not have its source in a human being. But how could he prove this to the Galatian churches? The answer is by appeal to his personal history. Hence, in the remainder of the chapter Paul shows that the conditions of his life before his conversion, at his conversion, and within a reasonable period after his conversion were not such that he could have received the Gospel from others, particularly the Jerusalem apostles. On the contrary, the very isolation of his life at this period shows that the Gospel must have come to him directly from God, as he has just indicated.

13 The first part of this cumulative argument concerns Paul’s former life in Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity. At this point, so far was he from coming under Christian influences that he actually was opposing the church and persecuting it.

The Judaism Paul practiced was an all-inclusive way of life, consuming his entire existence before his conversion. This brief reference to his former life is augmented by his lengthier descriptions elsewhere (see comments on Php 3:4–6). “You have heard” suggests that these facts were known to the Galatians long before any question had been raised about Paul’s teaching.

Two aspects of his former life are specifically brought forward in his review of it here: he persecuted the church (v.13), and he advanced in the traditions of Judaism well beyond those of his own age among his countrymen (v.14). In both of these aspects Paul was fanatical, demonstrating his fanaticism against the church by the violence of his persecution and by his actual endeavor to “destroy” (GK 4514) it (cf. v.23; Ac 8:1–4; 9:1–2, 13–14; 22:4–5).

14 The zeal that later fired Paul in his missionary efforts existed before his conversion, for it was part of his personality. Before his Damascus experience this zeal was devoted to advancing as a Pharisee in Judaism. This he did beyond his own contemporaries. He undoubtedly spent much time memorizing the Torah and the rabbinical traditions. With such a background no one could claim that Paul did not know Judaism or the OT. Nor could anyone claim that during this period he had subtly received his instruction in Christianity from others.

15–16 No one with such a personality and with such zealous persecution of the church is about to be converted by another person or by human testimony. Only God himself could accomplish such a conversion. This is precisely what happened to Paul. Thus, Paul begins to speak of his conversion, stressing that God did it entirely apart from any human agent. The reference is to Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus (see Ac 9:1–19; 22:1–16; 26:9–18). The contrast in subjects between vv.13–14 and vv.15–16 is interesting. In the first section Paul himself is the subject (cf. “I”). In the second section, “God” is the subject, and his grace is emphasized.

There are three things Paul says God did for him. (1) God set him apart “from birth.” Paul’s words parallel Jeremiah’s description of his own calling (Jer 1:5) and may consciously reflect it. Paul emphasizes God’s grace in electing him to salvation and to the apostleship. (2) God called Paul “by his grace.” This is a reference to his conversion, the moment in which Paul became aware of God’s work in him. (3) God “reveal[ed] his Son in [Paul]” (v.16). This phrase probably refers to the sudden realization of what God had done in Paul’s life by placing the life of the Lord Jesus Christ within Paul. God did this in order that he might become the apostle to the Gentiles.

God’s revelation of Jesus in Paul was essentially an inner revelation concerning who Jesus was and what his life, death, and resurrection meant. This became so much a part of him, even at this early stage of his Christian experience, that he immediately began to make the revelation of Christ known to others. What grace this demonstrates! Paul, the chief opponent of Christianity in the apostolic era, now turned preacher of what he once tried to destroy! Was this change accomplished by a human being? No! Hence, even in his conversion (as in the period before his conversion) Paul could not have received the Gospel that he preached from other people.

17 Finally, Paul did not receive his message from any person after his conversion. He insists that he did not consult anyone, particularly the Jerusalem apostles, but went instead into Arabia (probably occurring between Ac 9:22 and 23). Most likely that time was spent in thinking and studying. Not until three years later (v.18) did he go up to Jerusalem and meet Peter.

2. Paul’s early years as a Christian (1:18–24)

18 The “three years” mentioned here are hard to define. It may have been three full years or only one full year plus parts of two others. Nor does Paul’s wording here indicate the point from which the three years or parts of three years are to be reckoned. Was it from the time of his conversion or his return to Damascus? Most likely it was the former (i.e., his conversion), in which case this visit to Jerusalem would have been about A.D. 35 (cf. 9:26–29).

What is certain is the general drift of Paul’s argument. He has been stressing that none of the apostles was in touch with him in order to impart the Gospel to him before, during, or immediately following his conversion. Now he is adding that a considerable length of time passed before he even met one of the Twelve in Jerusalem. What is more, even then he stayed no more than a fortnight and met only Peter and James.

Why did Paul go to meet Peter? No doubt they talked about Christ, and Paul used the occasion to enrich his already firm grasp of the Gospel by the stories Peter could tell of the life and actual teachings of Jesus. Paul undoubtedly valued knowing these things. But the wording of the text in Galatians suggests that Paul’s main purpose for this trip was to “get acquainted” (GK 2707) with Peter. The word used here suggests the telling of a story. Paul would have told his story, Peter his. So these two leading apostles became acquainted and encouraged each other in their forthcoming work. For the point of Paul’s argument, it is important to note that this was a private visit and not one designed to secure the support of any human authorities.

19 Perhaps Paul’s legalizing opponents would take advantage of this admission of a visit to Peter to attempt to show that Paul was dependent on the Jerusalem apostles after all. Well, let them! Paul will even admit that he also saw James, the brother of the Lord (see comment on Mk 6:3), who later played an important part in the Jerusalem Council. A reading of Ac 9:26–29 might suggest that Paul was introduced to all the apostles by Barnabas, but he is affirming that, in point of fact, he met only two.

20 Paul swears (cf. Ro 9:1; 2Co 1:23; 11:31; 1Th 2:5; 1Ti 2:7) that this account of his relationship with the Twelve is accurate. He takes this solemn oath probably in order to answer a specific charge of misrepresentation made against him. That Paul is answering specific charges should be remembered throughout these first two chapters. Each historical event he mentions relates to a specific argument raised by Paul’s opponents. It is important to realize that Paul is not trying to provide a full chronology of his life.

21 Strict chronology is certainly not the main concern in this verse; if it were, the correct order of the areas Paul visited would be Cilicia and then Syria (see Ac 9:30; 11:25–26). Actually, he is merely indicating that in the next period of his life he worked, not in Jerusalem and Judea, where one could argue he was under the authority of the other apostles, but far away in the regions of Syria and Cilicia where he was on his own. Tarsus, Paul’s hometown, was in Cilicia. Barnabas went there to get Paul when he needed his help for the work in Antioch (Ac 11:25), the capital of Syria. There Paul carried on a long and fruitful ministry.

22 Because Paul had worked so long in relative obscurity in the north and had paid no new visits to Jerusalem, he was “personally unknown” to Christians in Judea. Only after many years did Paul begin his famed missionary journeys in response to the call of the Holy Spirit through the Christians at Antioch.

23–24 The word “only” (v.23) suggests that after his conversion, Paul dropped so completely from sight that he was almost forgotten. The only report heard was that the one who long ago had persecuted the church was now preaching the Gospel. Once again Paul stresses his isolation from everything going on in Jerusalem. Would that there were more such contentment among Christians today—the contentment to be unknown! There would be, if this were the goal—to have God glorified (v.24). Too often those in prominent places within the church seek their own glory in Christian service rather than the glory of God.

C. Paul’s Relationship to the Other Apostles (2:1–21)

1. The council at Jerusalem (2:1–5)

Chapter 2 begins a different unit of Paul’s argument. There is a connection, of course, for he is still speaking of his apostolic authority. But now he wants to demonstrate the essential unity between himself and the other apostles, whereas ch. 1 focused on his independence from them. There are four main differences between the first ten verses of this chapter and those preceding it: (1) There is a new subject—not the source of Paul’s Gospel, but the nature of the Gospel as centered in the issue of circumcision for Gentiles; (2) there is a new aspect of Paul’s relationship to the Twelve—not independence from them, but harmony and cooperation; (3) there is a new period of Paul’s ministry and of early church history; and (4) there is a new conclusion—namely, that in the essential content of the Gospel and of the plan for missionary activity, Paul and the Twelve were one.

This is the first point historically at which Paul came into sharp conflict with the heresy that was troubling the Galatian churches. What was to be done about this distinct point of view? Was it a minor matter to be passed over quickly? Was it an issue on which to seek compromise? Should a battle be fought? Apparently few besides Paul and perhaps Barnabas recognized the full importance of the issue at the time. So it is to Paul’s steadfastness in conflict that Christians everywhere owe, humanly speaking, the continuation of the full Gospel of grace.

1 The “fourteen years” are most likely to be reckoned from the end of the three years mentioned in 1:18. Paul’s main point is not how long after his conversion he made this visit to Jerusalem, but how long after last seeing the apostles he went up to see them again. Besides, Paul undoubtedly thought of the years of labor in Syria and Cilicia as a set period of his ministry, and his point is that these years were broken only by the trouble from the legalizers and by the revelation that he had to go up to Jerusalem to argue the cause of Gentile liberty. The council in Jerusalem, therefore, likely took place in A.D. 49 (see comment on 1:18).

Barnabas and Titus accompanied Paul, though Luke does not mention the presence of Titus in his account of the council. The presence of Titus is best explained by Paul’s desire for a test case (see vv.3–5).

2 Luke says that Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem as the result of a decision by the believers at Antioch (Ac 15:2). Yet there is no real contradiction between this account and Paul’s statement about going up “in response to a revelation.” Either the church at Antioch prayed about what should be done and then commissioned Paul and Barnabas in response to what they believed God told them to do, or else the revelation was a parallel and confirming one to Paul. Undoubtedly, Paul mentions the matter of revelation only to emphasize once again that at no time was he at the call of the other apostles. On the contrary, his movements as well as his Gospel are to be attributed directly to the revealed will of God.

The discussion of Paul’s experiences in Jerusalem goes as far as v.10, but the essence of the matter and its outcome are already suggested in the second half of this verse. Paul spoke privately to those who were the apparent leaders of the Jerusalem church, wishing to avoid public remarks or a decision that would seriously affect the work he was doing among the Gentiles. If the doctrine of grace were not boldly and clearly upheld, terrible consequences for the church’s missionary outreach would ensue. What happened at the council, then? Obviously, Paul’s point was upheld, for the present tense of the verb “to preach” shows that the Gospel preached by Paul in his early years was still being preached by him at the time of his writing.

3–5 In the context of relating his contacts with the apostolic leaders at Jerusalem Paul now introduces an instance in which he claims to have defended the purity of the Gospel from the encroachments of those who would have mixed aspects of the Mosaic law with grace as the way of salvation. This incident was the attempt of the Jewish legalists to force the rite of circumcision on Titus. The outcome of the struggle, as Paul said, was a successful defense of the Gospel.

These verses have generated a significant amount of discussion, both because the words “This matter arose” in v.4 are not in the original Greek (and thus v.5 is needed to complete the sentence of v.4 if the words are not added) and because some manuscripts omit the words “not” and “to them” in v.5 (this makes the passage say that Paul did in fact yield for a moment). Furthermore, one must face the question whether Paul is referring in v.5 to the apostles or to the false brothers of v.4.

It is the contention of this writer that the NIV has by and large correctly interpreted Paul’s thought here. In other words, v.4 is related to the thought of pressure being applied to Paul by the leaders at Jerusalem in deference to the false brothers, yet it was successfully resisted by Paul in defense of Gentile liberty.

Historically the picture one gets is this. The apostles at Jerusalem were wavering on neutral ground, tending to advise compliance to the law on Paul’s part, but they finally came out for Paul by declaring openly for freedom from the law. This wavering attitude is suggested in the following verses, both in the attitude of reserve Paul seems to have encountered at Jerusalem (vv.6, 9) and in the related wavering of Peter at Antioch (vv.11–14). Moreover, this fits in with what is most clear in this passage, namely, that the conflict was primarily between the false brothers and Paul and that in the end (whether wavering before that time or not) the apostles stood solidly with Paul and Barnabas.

The term “false brothers” (used here and in 2Co 11:26) defines those who are not in fact Christians, though they pretend to be so. Paul’s reference to these men “infiltrating” and “spying” entails a military metaphor and suggests the subversive and militant nature of the evil that Paul was fighting. In Paul’s mind, the desire of the legalizers “to make us slaves” occurred in a manner similar to those who would take a city by stealth or force in order to place the inhabitants in chains.

Defending the Gospel that Paul had received from God was not done for any personal or selfish reasons, but “so that the truth of the gospel might remain” with believers (v.5). The word “truth” (GK 237) stands in marked contrast to the falseness mentioned in the preceding verse. Therefore, it must mean “the true gospel” as opposed to “the false gospel” being taught by the false brothers. The issue at stake here is an either-or issue: either the true Gospel in its entirety, or that which is no gospel at all! The importance of this issue made Paul adamant in his relationship to all others, Christians and non-Christians; it should make all who know the Lord Jesus Christ and who love the Gospel equally adamant in their thought, speech, and writings.

2. Paul and the pillar apostles (2:6–10)

6 As in v.4, the construction is again broken, with the result that the first few words (followed by an interjection concerning God’s refusal to judge by appearances) are left hanging. Undoubtedly, Paul intended to revert to the subject of v.2 in order to point out that, having laid before the pillar apostles the Gospel he had been preaching, they found it to be in accordance with the truth. But Paul’s thought is interrupted, and he hastens to add that whatever the historical advantages of the original apostles might have been in that they knew the historical Jesus, this was not important either to him or to God—and they added nothing to his message.

Three times in this chapter (vv.2, 6, 9) Paul refers to the three major figures at Jerusalem in an unusual way. The persons in question are James, Peter, and John (v.9), described as “those who seemed to be leaders,” “those who seemed to be important,” and “those reputed to be pillars.” Why this unusual and perhaps even deferential way of referring to them? Though not all commentators agree, it does seem as if Paul is making a real (though balanced) note of disparagement of these three apostles. The very repetition of the phrase seems ominous, in the same way as Antony’s repetition of the word “honorable” concerning Brutus in his eulogy at Julius Caesar’s funeral in Shakespeare’s play makes the conspirators seem dishonorable. Furthermore, each occurrence of the phrase seems to grow stronger with each repetition. Third, the story of Peter’s conduct at Antioch in vv.11–14 lends credence to the feeling that Paul is disappointed with the conduct of those who should have been leaders in this great crisis of faith and doctrine but who failed to take the lead.

In other words, the delicate situation lying behind these verses explains the movement of Paul’s thought. Paul is torn between a desire to stress the basic unity that did exist between himself and the Twelve and the need to be honest in indicating that, so far as he was concerned, the apostles did not perform well in the crisis. Thus, his initial allusion to the apostles in v.2 seems to him on second thought to be too vague. He breaks in with the Titus incident, but again not indicating clearly enough that it was the apostles who for the sake of harmony were urging that Titus be circumcised. Finally, Paul picks up the matter of the apostles again (v.6) and eventually names them (v.9), this time indicating that those who were reported to be “pillars” almost failed to do the work of supporting the Gospel.

Paul has therefore done the following: (1) recognized the position and authority of the Jerusalem apostles without diminishing his own authority in the slightest; (2) indicated, in opposition to the exaggerated claims about them made by the legalizers, that the apostles were men after all and hence not always perfect in their conduct; (3) decisively separated the Gospel and policies of the Twelve, for all their weaknesses, from the Gospel and policies of the legalizers; and (4) taken note of the fact that he and the Twelve, rather than the legalizers and the Twelve, stood together. Eventually, he will even show that the agreement between himself and the Twelve was cordial both in relation to their respective spheres of ministry (cf. v.9, “James, Peter and John . . . gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship”) and in regard to the special obligation of the Gentiles toward the Jerusalem poor (cf. v.10, “the very thing I was eager to do”).

So far as the Gospel Paul preached was concerned, the Jerusalem conference had two results. Negatively, the Twelve “added nothing” to Paul; his Gospel was complete because it was received by revelation. Positively, the “pillars” recognized that all of them had been entrusted with the same Gospel and that they differed only in respect to the different fields they had been assigned to preach it in.

7–8 The phrase “they saw” implies a change of mind by the Twelve as a result of Paul and Barnabas’s having reported on all that God had done through them among the Gentiles (cf. Ac 15:4). At first they were skeptical and uncertain, but later they came to stand with Paul on the issue of circumcision (cf. NIV text note). And just as the Gospel is one Gospel, no matter to whom it is preached, so also the commissioning and enabling of those who preach it are one—the reason being that the one who commissioned and empowered both Peter and Paul is God.

9 The exact use and order of the names of the leading apostles in this verse should not escape notice. First, the order obviously corresponds to the relative positions and work of James and Peter as recorded in Acts. Peter was a great missionary. Hence, when Paul is speaking of the ministry to the Jews, Peter is prominent (vv.7–8). But in dealing with a particular and official act of the Jerusalem church, James (who apparently presided at the council) is mentioned in the first position, with the names of Peter and John following.

James, Peter, and John are called “pillars” of the church. Pillars were used in ancient building techniques to support the superstructure. Here are the ruins of the synagogue in Capernaum, the town from which Peter and John came (see Mk 1:14–34).

10 Paul had already shown a concern for the poor at the time of the famine visit when he traveled to Jerusalem with Barnabas as a representative of the church at Antioch (Ac 11:27–30). At the time of the council he was reminded of this good work and encouraged to pursue it. Out of this request, with which he was in great sympathy, arose the collection from among the Gentile churches that occupied so large a part in Paul’s later thought and writings (cf. Ac 24:17; Ro 15:26; 1Co 16:1–4; 2Co 8–9). The change from the plural first person (“we”) to the singular (“I”) may reflect Paul and Barnabas’s parting company by the time the collection was actually taken up (see Ac 15:36–40).

3. Peter comes to Antioch (2:11–14)

The account of the Jerusalem Council is followed immediately by another historical incident, the last in Paul’s series, in which he dramatically supports his claim to possess an authority equal to and independent of the other apostles. In the opening part of this chapter, Paul has demonstrated his essential unity with those who were apostles before him. Now he shows that he stood so firmly grounded in the Gospel that he opposed even Peter, contradicting him publicly when Peter’s conduct at Antioch threatened to compromise that Gospel.

For some reason, Peter had left the Jewish community at Jerusalem and had gone to the Gentile city of Antioch in Syria. There he discovered a community of Jewish and Gentile Christians living together and, in particular, eating together in apparent disregard of Jewish dietary customs. This was probably against the practice then prevailing in Jerusalem even after the council, but God had already shown Peter what he was to do in such situations (see Ac 10:15). So Peter joined with other Jews for some time in eating with his Gentile brothers. In this decision, he went beyond the letter of the decrees of the council, for though the council had acknowledged the right of freedom from the law for Gentiles, it had nevertheless retained the observance of the law for Jews. Now Peter was declaring that the Jew as well as the Gentile was free from Mosaic legislation.

After a time, some influential Jews arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, claiming to represent James. They were the legalists, and Peter’s practice shocked them. Not only was his conduct not required by the Jerusalem agreement, they might have argued, it was actually contrary to it. These persons brought such pressure to bear on Peter that he gradually detached himself from the Gentile fellowship and began to eat with Jews only. Moreover, his conduct drew others away with him, so that when Paul returned to Antioch from wherever he had gone, he found a church divided and the Gentiles under an unwarranted pressure either to accept the division or to conform to the legalistic standards of Judaism as the means of avoiding it.

What did Paul do? Since the schism was public, Paul confronted Peter publicly, charging him with inconsistency and stating once again that observing the law has no place in God’s plan of salvation. From this response, the Galatians could realize that Paul was not a self-appointed apostle, nor even a worker appointed and approved by the Twelve. He was rather a full apostle in his own right, who could therefore speak with full authority—even, if necessary, in opposition to another apostle.

11 It is not known exactly when Peter came to Antioch, but the flow of events suggests that it was after the council. The Antioch incident reflects an entirely new situation from the council. There was a new issue (foods rather than circumcision), a new area of the faith (Christian living rather than the basis of salvation), and a new subject (Jewish liberty rather than the freedom of Gentile Christians). This dispute could have followed naturally upon the compromise reached at the council.

12 Here is the reason why Peter stood condemned. He was not simply making an honest mistake. The Peter who had received a vision prior to going to the house of Cornelius (Ac 10) and who had defended Paul at the council (Ac 15:7–11) was not fooled by the arguments of the legalizers. Instead, he had gradually given in to the pressure exerted by the legalizers. In other words, Peter played the hypocrite.

13 Unfortunately, conduct such as Peter’s is not inconsequential, neither in his day nor now, for he was a pillar apostle. Thus one is not surprised to read that other Jews, including Barnabas, were led away by his hypocrisy. If Peter had been a lesser man or less prominent, the defection would have seemed less serious. The greater one’s position or responsibility, the more important one’s actions become.

14 Paul has already shown that he opposed Peter to his face because he was wrong (v.11), but we are not to think that he did this because he loved exposing error or, even less, because he loved an argument or wanted to enhance his own prestige. Paul’s real concern was for the truth of the Gospel, and he acted out of the very concern that Peter lacked.

This is the second time that Paul has spoken of “the truth of the gospel” (vv.5, 14)—the good news that men and women are not accepted with God because of anything they have done or can do but solely on the basis of God’s grace shown in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Moreover, on the basis of this death all who believe are to be accepted equally. Peter’s conduct compromised this principle, for it implied that there could be a superiority in some Christians based on race or traditions. It is not enough merely to understand and accept the Gospel, as Peter did, nor even to defend it, as he did at Jerusalem. A Christian must also practice the Gospel consistently, allowing it to regulate all areas of conduct.

4. Justification by faith alone (2:15–21)

The verses that conclude this chapter contain capsule statements of some of the most significant truths of Christianity. In particular, Paul clearly states the doctrine of “justification” (GK 1467–1470) by grace through faith and defends it over against the traditional objection that justification by faith leads to lawlessness. This message is central to the letter, to his Gospel, and indeed to Christianity generally. This statement flows out of the situation at Antioch and anticipates the fuller argument of the same doctrine in chs. 3–4.

15 It is impossible to say precisely where Paul’s remarks to Peter on the occasion of Peter’s hypocrisy at Antioch leave off and Paul’s direct remarks to the Christians of Galatia begin. Some commentators end the direct quotation at v.14; others, like the NIV, carry it to the end of the chapter. Paul seems to be gradually moving away from commenting on the situation at Antioch, but he does it so naturally that he himself was unconcerned with the transition. In v.14, he speaks of “you” (meaning Peter) and in v.15 “we” (meaning himself, Peter, and other Jews), undoubtedly with the situation at Antioch in mind. Later he is probably thinking of the broader situation that faced the Gentile churches.

The argument in v.15 is addressed to those who are “Jews by birth,” i.e., those who possessed the advantages of a privileged birth and a revealed religion (cf. Ro 3:1–2; 9:4–5). But such great advantages are inadequate for achieving a state of righteousness before God; even Jews must be saved through faith. It is folly, therefore, to attempt to reestablish Judaism as a base for Christianity. The phrase “Gentile sinners,” used seriously by legalistic Jews, has an ironic ring in Paul’s mouth.

16 This is one of the most important verses in the letter. It contains the first mention of the words “justify” and “law” (GK 3795), and is also the first place in which “faith” (GK 4411) is brought forward as the indispensable channel of salvation.

“Justify” (GK 1467) is a forensic term borrowed from the law courts. It means “to declare righteous or innocent”; the opposite is “to condemn” or “to pronounce guilty.” Such a term involves an objective standard, and since righteousness is understood to be the unique characteristic of God, that standard must be the divine standard. In themselves, all persons fall short of this standard (Ro 3:23), but in Christ, God declares all who believe as righteous, imputing divine righteousness to them apart from human merit. In justification, the guilty are pardoned, acquitted, and reinstated as God’s children and as fellow heirs with Jesus Christ.

This experience does not happen automatically to everyone. God justifies as he unites a man or woman to Christ, a union that takes place only through the channel of human faith. Faith is the means, not the source, of justification. Faith is trust. It begins with knowledge, so it is not blind. It builds on facts, so it is not speculation. It stakes its life on the outcome, so it is not impractical. Faith is trusting Christ and proving his promises. The expression in the middle of v.16 (lit., “we have believed into Christ”) implies an act of personal commitment, running to him for refuge and seeking mercy.

It is also implied in this commitment that a person will turn one’s back on the only other possibility—the attempt to be justified by works done in obedience to formal statutes from whatever source. Paul’s emphasis here is not on the Jewish law (there is no article in Greek with the word “law”), though it includes it, but rather on any system of attempting to please God by good deeds.

The threefold repetition of the doctrine of justification by faith in this one verse is important, because it shows the importance the apostle gives to the doctrine. Besides, the three phrases increase in emphasis. The first is general: “A man is not justified by observing . . . law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” “A man” is anyone. The second phrase is particular and personal. “We, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing . . . law.” This phrase involves Paul himself, as well as all who stand with him in the faith. The final statement is universal: “By observing the law no one will be justified.” The words are literally “all flesh,” i.e., all humankind without exception. This final statement quotes Ps 143:2 (cf. Ro 3:20), adding the stamp of biblical principle.

17 In Paul’s day, as today, arguments were directed against this way of salvation. So in this verse and the following ones Paul begins to answer these objections, first noting the main argument of his opponents and then revealing the argument by which he refutes theirs.

There have been many interpretations of this verse, because the wording contains several ambiguities. Is Paul speaking hypothetically or is he referring to actual experience? He obviously denies the conclusion that Christ is the minister of sin, but does he also deny that “we ourselves . . . are found sinners” (KJV)? In what sense is sin mentioned?

The best interpretation—one that reflects Paul’s thought elsewhere (Ro 6–8) and best explains the following verses—is that Paul refers to the standard antinomian objection to the doctrine of justification by faith, namely, that eliminating the law entirely encourages godless living. The argument goes, “Your doctrine of justification by faith is dangerous, for by eliminating the law you also eliminate one’s sense of moral responsibility. If people can be accounted righteous simply by believing that Christ died for them, why then should they bother to keep the law or live by any standard of morality? There is no need to be good. The result of your doctrine is that people will believe in Christ but thereafter do as they desire.” Paul’s reply is abrupt: “Absolutely not!” The form of his expression suggests that he was aware of the possibility that Christians can (and do) sin. But this is not the result of the doctrine of justification by faith, and therefore Christ is not responsible for it. Such a thought is abhorrent. If there is sin, as Paul acknowledges indirectly in the next verse, human beings themselves are responsible.

Why is it that Paul can reply so vigorously to the objection that his Gospel promotes lawlessness, especially since he seems to admit that those who have been justified by faith do sin? His answer is that the objection totally misunderstands the nature of one’s justification. In the eyes of legalizers, justification by faith is nothing more than a legal fiction by which men and women are accounted righteous when in fact they are not. But justification is not a legal fiction. It is true that people are accepted by God as righteous when they are not, but this takes place only because God has first joined them to Christ and this in its turn implies a real transformation. They are “in Christ,” says Paul. Consequently, they are “a new creation” (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15). Obviously, to return to the old way of life after such a change is inconceivable.

18 The interpretation of this verse is not difficult in the light of the interpretation of v.17 given above. The legalizers had accused Paul of encouraging sin because his doctrine overthrows the law for God’s grace. This Paul denied. Nevertheless, he replies, sin could be encouraged if having once come to God by faith in Jesus Christ the one coming should then return to law as a basis for the relationship. This is an argument e contrario. It refers to a situation precisely like that one into which Peter had fallen—he turned back to Jewish practices and ended up sinning against the Gentiles. In view of the following verses, Paul is likely thinking of the great sinfulness of turning from the Savior (whom the law anticipated) to mere ordinances (for a similar argument, see Heb 6:4–6).

19 The “we” of v.17 (which included both Paul and Peter) has changed to the “I” of v.18. This personal form of expression continues as Paul begins to unfold the full nature of the justification that is his because of his being “in Christ.” In this verse “I” is emphatic by being in the first position in the sentence. It contrasts with the similar position given to “in Christ,” which (in the Greek text) begins v.20.

Paul has argued that if he should return to law after having come to God through faith in Christ, he would make himself a transgressor. But this is not what he does. On the contrary, the opposite is true, for in coming to God in Christ he died to the law so completely that he could not possibly return to it. The law cannot bring life, for no one has ever fulfilled it. Law brings death, for by it all stand condemned. Nevertheless, the law does perform a good function, for in the very act of destroying all hope for salvation by human works, the law actually opens the way to discovering new life in God (for a more complete explanation of these issues, see comments on Ro 5:20; 7:1–13).

20 This same point Paul now repeats in greater detail, with the name of Christ prominent. He has died to law so that he might live for God, but this is true only because he has been joined by the Father to the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus died; so did Paul. Jesus rose again; so did Paul. The resurrection life he is now living he is living through the presence of the Lord Jesus within him. By having died and come to life in Christ the believer actually participates in Christ’s death and resurrection, conceived on the basis of the mystical union of the believer with the Lord (cf. Ro 6:4–8; Col 2:12–14, 20; 3:1–4).

What does it mean to be “in Christ”? It means to be so united to Christ that all the experiences of Christ become the Christian’s experiences. Thus, his death for sin was the believer’s death; his resurrection was (in one sense) the believer’s resurrection; his ascension was the believer’s ascension, so that the believer is (again in one sense) seated with Christ “in the heavenly realms” (Eph 2:6). When one died with Christ, one’s “old self” (cf. Eph 4:25) died with Christ. This was arranged by God so that Christ, rather than the old Paul, might live in him.

True, Paul is still living. But he adds that the life he lives now is lived “by faith.” It is a different life from the life in which he was striving to be justified by law. In another sense, it is not Paul who is living at all, but rather Christ who lives in him.

21 This last sentence of ch. 2 is introduced abruptly and from a new point of view. In the preceding verses Paul has answered the objections of his critics. Now he objects to their doctrine, showing that if they are right, then Christ has died in vain. The heart of Christianity lies in the grace of God and in the death of Jesus Christ. To insist on justification by works undermines the foundation of Christianity by nullifying God’s grace.

Paul’s logic is incontrovertible. Yet many still pursue the fallacious logic of the legalizers. They suppose that to earn their salvation is somehow praiseworthy and noble, when actually it is vainglorious and ignoble. True nobility (and humility) is to accept what God offers.

II. Paul’s Defense of the Gospel (3:1–4:31)

A. The Doctrinal Issue: Faith or Works (3:1–5)

The apostle has been defending the Gospel of grace from the very beginning of this letter, but until now he has done so from the viewpoint of his own experience and calling. These had been challenged. So he has been insisting that God rather than another human being called him and gave him his message. In speaking of his own experiences, however, Paul has gradually worked around to talking about the Gospel itself, and this has brought him to the place where he is now set for a theological—or, better, a scriptural—defense of the Gospel. So he returns to the Galatians themselves and to the point at which the doctrine of justification through faith bore down upon their own experience.

1–2 This is the first time since 1:11 that Paul addresses the Galatians. Now it is by the impersonal term “Galatians” rather than by the word “brothers,” and it sets a sober tone for the formal argument to follow.

Paul cites three things that are inexplicable in regard to the Galatians’ conduct. (1) Their conduct is irrational or “foolish” (GK 485), a word that suggests the actions of one who can think but fails to use those powers of perception (cf. Lk 24:25; Ro 1:14; 1Ti 6:9; Tit 3:3). This term was suggested to Paul by the trend of his thought at the end of the previous chapter—namely, that a doctrine of salvation by works foolishly denies the necessity for grace and declares the death of Jesus Christ unnecessary. A doctrine leading to such a conclusion is irrational. Yet this is what the Galatians were on the verge of embracing. How can such nonsense be explained? Paul suggests facetiously that perhaps they have been placed under a spell by some magician.

(2) Paul cannot understand what is happening because the true Gospel had been so clearly preached to them. Undoubtedly, he is referring to his own preaching, arguing that the Gospel had been made as clear by him as if he had posted it on a public bulletin board. The heart of the Gospel that Paul preached is—and always must be—“Christ crucified” (cf. 1Co 2:2).

(3) The conduct of the Galatians is inexplicable because it was so totally contrary to their initial experiences of Christianity. How did they begin? This is what Paul would like to hear from them, and he is not interested in hearing anything other than the basic answer to this basic question. Did they receive the Holy Spirit by living up to some formal statutes? Or did they enter into the Christian life simply by believing and receiving what they heard concerning the death of the Lord Jesus Christ?

3 Paul presupposes their answer, which is obviously that they became Christians only through believing what they heard. The conclusion follows that, having begun by faith, they must continue in faith. It cannot be otherwise, because the two ways—faith versus works—are in conflict. Paul emphasizes this conflict by three sets of comparisons: (1) works versus hearing, (2) law versus faith, and (3) Spirit versus flesh. The last antithesis will come to prominence in the ethical section (5:13–26).

4 There is some ambiguity in the question “Have you suffered so much for nothing?” It may imply actual suffering, as is suggested in NIV. Or it may refer simply to the Galatians’ previous spiritual experiences: “Have all your great experiences been in vain?” (NEB). Both views make sense in interpreting the letter as a whole, but the latter seems to fit the immediate context better. In this case, the experiences of the Galatians are further amplified by the reminder in v.5 that God was working miracles in their midst through the power of his Holy Spirit.

5 Nothing must be allowed to obscure the point Paul is making, so once more he voices the test question of v.2, but his emphasis now is on God’s point of view, asking on what basis God is working miracles among them right up to the present. Paul anticipates here the end of the argument, for it is evident that blessing in the Christian life comes just as it began—through faith, and not as the result of any human attainments.

B. The Doctrinal Argument (3:6–4:7)

Many outlines have been given of these next verses. A helpful outline is to be found in the very antithesis that Paul develops in this section. Is a person justified by “observing law” or by believing what one has heard? With this question in mind, Paul begins to discuss the alternatives—dealing first with faith, then with law, then with faith, then with law, and so on. The following diagram suggests the flow of the argument.

The Test Question:

Believing what was heard	“observing the law”
The true Gospel	The legalizers’ “gospel”
3:6-9 Faith (“Abraham”)	3:10-14 Law (the “curse”)
3:15-18 Faith (“covenant”)	3:19-22 Law (“trangressions”)
3:23-29 Faith (“heirs”)	4:1-7 Law (“bondage”)

1. Children of Abraham (3:6–9)

Paul turns to the first section of the alternating argument. The issue is scriptural, for he is concerned to show that not only the experience of the Galatians but also the words of the OT support his teaching that the means of entering into salvation is faith. Abraham is his example.

Paul’s statements presuppose a knowledge of Abraham by the Galatians, and it is not difficult to imagine how the Christians of Galatia had learned it. If Paul had preached among the Galatians for any length of time, he would undoubtedly have taught Christian doctrine in part on the basis of Abraham’s life. Furthermore, if (as we argued in the introduction) the churches of Galatia were the churches of the south, there was undoubtedly a large Jewish population in the area with which Christians must at least have had some contact and with whose history they must have been familiar. Most significant, however, is the probability that the obligation to become “children” of Abraham through circumcision formed the central argument of the legalizers’ teaching. This argument would have focused on Ge 12 and 17; they would have claimed that no one could be blessed by God who was not part of the company to whom God’s promises were made, and one entered this company solely through circumcision. These arguments Paul encounters head on, for he shows that even Abraham was blessed through faith, not circumcision.

6 Paul begins his argument by linking his OT example to the Galatians’ spiritual experience, showing that what they had known to be true in their own lives (salvation by faith alone) was also true for others and is confirmed by Scripture.

To appeal to Abraham is more than to appeal to just any historical example, because Abraham was the acknowledged father and prototype of Israel. He was the man God started with. He had come from a pagan ancestry beyond the river Euphrates (Jos 24:1–2), but God had called him and had made a covenant with him. From Abraham the Jewish people came, and all Jews looked back to him as their spiritual father and example. How, then, did Abraham receive God’s blessing? How was he justified? Paul answers by a quotation of Ge 15:6, noting that Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

What does Paul mean by faith being imputed to Abraham as “righteousness” (GK 1466)? The answer depends on the definition of “righteousness.” This may be either a forensic term (denoting a right standing before the law) or aterm denoting a right relationship (in this case to God). If the latter definition is taken, Paul’s point is that Abraham’s trusting attitude toward God was accepted by God as righteousness. But if the forensic use predominates, then it must be God’s own personal righteousness that was imputed to Abraham in place of his own, which was inadequate. If there were nothing else to go on than Ge 15:6, the second of these two uses might be preferable. But in view of Paul’s development of the doctrine elsewhere, the first must be adopted. It is only by thinking of God’s righteousness actually being credited to our account that Paul can say (2Co 5:21): “God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” These two views are not in opposition, of course, for justification does bring one into a right relationship with God out of which ethical changes follow. The changes result from one’s being placed “in Christ,” as Paul has shown (2:20).

7 One example does not make a case, however. So Paul continues his argument with a sentence linking the situation of Abraham to the present. He means, “Since Abraham was saved by faith, his true children are, therefore, even now, those who are saved by faith, as he was.” The background is undoubtedly the claim of the Judaizers that one became a genuine child of Abraham by circumcision and subsequent obedience to the law. This verse is an important one for linking the two covenants, that of the OT and that of the NT, for Paul stresses that Abraham’s faith was of the same kind as Christian faith.

8 Paul now continues to use Scripture as evidence of what he has already concluded in v.7. His quotation from Ge 12:3 makes two points: (1) that the blessing promised to Abraham was from the beginning intended to include the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and (2) that the Gospel promise preceded everything else in God’s dealings with his people, including the giving of the law (cf. v.17).

The unusual way the OT is cited here makes this an important verse in assessing the value given the OT by Paul and other NT writers. The Scriptures are personified here; they “foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham.” Paul views the Scriptures as if they were God speaking (cf. also Ro 9:17). Such verses highlight an absolute identification of Scripture with the words of God in the minds of the NT writers and are important biblical support for the historical Christian belief in the total inspiration of the Bible.

9 The reader is now at the peak of the first section of Paul’s argument. It is a throwback to the question of v.5: Who are the ones who enter into spiritual blessing? The answer is: Those characterized by the approach of faith are blessed along with Abraham, who had faith. Since the blessing of Abraham is declared to have been intended for the Gentiles also, how could the Gentiles be blessed except by faith?

2. The law’s curse (3:10–14)

Having established his doctrine of justification by faith positively, Paul now turns to its negative counterpart: the impossibility of being justified by law. Significantly, he rests his case on statements from the law itself, contending that those who wish to live by the law are bound by their own principles to these statements. Three points follow: (1) Those living under the principle of law are under the law’s curse, for the law pronounces a curse upon all who fail to keep the law in its entirety; (2) no one is justified by law, since the law itself teaches that people are justified by faith; and (3) no mixture of these principles is possible, for they are mutually exclusive. To this argument Paul adds a reference to the twofold benefit of the work of Christ: redemption from the curse that the law has imposed on everybody and a blessing by which the promise of the Spirit made to Abraham is fulfilled for all who believe on Christ as Savior.

10 In the first four verses of Paul’s formal argument (vv.6–9) he has cited two OT texts: Ge 15:6 and Ge 12:3. In vv.10–12 he quotes the OT three more times, in each case demonstrating that an attempt to live by law, rather than producing a blessing, actually brings a curse from God. Why? First of all, because the law demands perfection, as Dt 27:26 declares. The law is not a collection of stray and miscellaneous parts, some of which may be conveniently disregarded. It is a whole and must be kept in all its parts if it is to be considered kept at all. A curse is attached to any failure to keep it, no matter how small. Since all fail, all are under that curse and consequently under God’s wrath (cf. Ro 3:23). That is, the law condemns a person and points human beings in their desperation to their need for a Savior (Ro 3:20–21).

11 One must not think that the law did nothing but condemn during all the centuries between the giving of the law through Moses and the coming of Jesus. On the contrary, the law itself showed the way of salvation. Paul proves this by a quotation of Hab 2:4—“The righteous will live by faith,” one of the few OT verses in which faith is presented as the means of salvation. Paul does not misrepresent Habakkuk’s meaning here, for if, as seems likely, “the righteous” in Hab 2:4 means those who are standing in a right relationship to God rather than those who are literally righteous before the law, then Habakkuk’s view is essentially in accord with Paul’s position here. One stands in a right relationship to God and lives before him by faith.

12 But perhaps both are needed, both faith and law? Not so, says Paul. For faith excludes law, and law by its very nature excludes faith. He quotes Lev 18:5 (part of the law) to support this position. Mentally we are to supply “the law says that” after “on the contrary.”

13 If these principles are true and if they support the topic sentence of v.10, then the condition of humankind under law is obviously hopeless. If there is to be hope, it must come from a different direction entirely. Abruptly, therefore, Paul introduces the work of Christ through which the curse of the law has been exhausted and in whom all who believe find salvation.

This is the first time Christ has been mentioned since the opening verse of the chapter, but now both he and his work are prominent. Christ is the only possible means of redemption. Since the “curse” of v.10 implies the idea of divine disapproval of the entire human race, the “us” in “Christ redeemed us” refers to both Jews and Gentiles. Paul goes on to show that the purpose of Christ’s death was that the blessing given to Abraham might come upon both Jew and Gentile.

To “redeem” (GK 1973) means “to buy out of slavery” by paying a price. Christ paid this price by dying (cf. Ac 20:28; 1Pe 1:18–19). An alternate way of saying the same thing is to say that Christ became “a curse for us,” which Paul does. In what sense did Jesus do this? Paul’s quotation from Dt 21:23—“Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—suggests that Jesus passed under the law’s curse in a technical way by virtue of the particular means by which he was executed. Thus, having violated the law in one part—through no fault of his own—he became technically guilty of all of it and bore the punishment of God’s wrath for every violation of the law by every person. But the curse of the law was not merely a technical thing; it was real. Jesus bore this real curse on our behalf when he died in our place. This can be understood in part both through the illustration of OT sacrifices (cf. the scapegoat taking away the curse of sin in Lev 16:5ff.) and in Christ’s cry of dereliction from the cross—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46).

14 Paul concludes this section of the argument with a twofold statement of the purpose for which Jesus Christ redeemed us through his death: first, that the blessing of Abraham (i.e., justification, as in vv.8–9) might come to Gentiles as well as Jews, and second, that all might together receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. These two purposes are coordinate; i.e., they express the same reality from two perspectives. Both return to the point from which Paul’s argument started—namely, that the blessing of Abraham, seen today in the reception of the Holy Spirit, is received through faith and through faith only.

3. The seed of Abraham (3:15–18)

At the close of the preceding section Paul introduced the idea of God’s promise to Abraham. Now he picks up this idea once more and develops it in relation to the giving of the law. This is the beginning of the second unit of his alternating answer to the question of v.2: “Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law or by believing what you heard?” (see diagram above).

Paul’s opponents were undoubtedly not ready to admit that Abraham was justified by faith in God’s promise. But even if he were, they might argue, still the giving of the law at a later time changed the basis for a person’s entrance into salvation. Anticipating this objection, Paul draws on the acknowledged character of human wills and covenants so as to show that no new development could change the promise made to Abraham.

15 “Brothers” introduces a change of tone on the part of the apostle, in contrast to the somewhat distant and formal beginning of ch. 3 (cf. 4:31; 6:1). It is as though he now invites the erring Galatians to reason along with him as he uses an analogy from everyday life. Paul is borrowing an illustration from human relationships (so also at Ro 3:5; 6:19; 7:1–3; 1Co 9:8).

Commentators have found difficulty in Paul’s use of the word “covenant” (GK 1347) here because the word can mean either “agreement” or “will.” But is it necessary to choose between the two meanings? Perhaps not. In English one has to choose between them simply because there are two separate words. But in the Greek language, it is possible to use both ideas. That this is the case here seems to be supported by: (1) Paul’s custom of playing on words elsewhere (e.g., Gal 5:12), (2) the same double meaning in Heb 9:15–20, and (3) the particular nature of the “covenant” made by God with Abraham. Paul is alluding to the promise of a universal blessing both to Jew and to Gentile through Abraham’s “seed” (Ge 12:2–3), which he conceives as the offer of justification to every human being through Christ. But if this is so, Paul certainly also has in mind God’s formal unilateral enactment of the covenant by the ceremony recorded in Ge 15.

In Abraham’s day an oath was sometimes confirmed by a ceremony in which animals were cut into two parts along the backbone and placed in two rows, the rows facing each other across a space marked off between them. The parties to the oath walked together into the space between the parts and spoke their promises there. This oath would be especially sacred because of the shed blood. But the ceremony in Ge 15 had this exception: In the case of God’s covenant with Abraham, God alone passed between the pieces of the slain animals, thereby signifying that he alone stood behind the promises (cf. also Heb 6:13–15). It did not depend on any condition to be fulfilled by Abraham.

The idea of a will is not far removed from this type of covenant, except in the matter of the death of the testator, which obviously cannot apply to God. Paul’s point is simply that the promise of justification through faith first made to Abraham is permanent. If a human will or agreement cannot be added to or annulled, how much less can the solemn promises made to Abraham and his seed be altered later by the living God!

16 This verse appears to be a parenthesis. But showing the scope of the promises made to Abraham is essential to Paul’s argument. If those promises were made only to Abraham and his immediate descendants, they might well be considered fulfilled even before the giving of the law; the law would then inaugurate a new era in God’s dealings with humankind. But the promises were not fulfilled in the period before the giving of the law, Paul argues. They were embodied in the coming Redeemer through whom the fullness of blessing was to come. That Redeemer was Christ. Consequently, God’s blessing of justification by grace through faith spans the ages; and the law, whatever else one might think of it, served only an interim function. Paul’s essential point is that the promises made to Abraham must be in effect eternally.

When Paul speaks of “seed” in the singular as opposed to “seeds,” he poses a problem for commentators, especially since the singular form has a collective significance and often denotes more than one person. The nearest English equivalent is the word “offspring.” What is the explanation? Obviously, Paul knew as well as anybody that “seed” generally referred to many persons (cf. Ro 4:16–18; 9:6–8). But he is simply pointing out that the singular word “seed” (rather than a plural word like “children” or “descendants”) is appropriate, inasmuch as Israel had always believed that the ultimate messianic blessing would come through a single individual.

17 The 430 years comes from the LXX of Ex 12:40, defining the period between Abraham and Moses rather than (cf. the Hebrew text) the period during which the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. The difference is of no consequence for Paul’s argument, however, because his point depends only on the historical sequence. If God had been blessing Abraham and his posterity through the way of promise for 430 years and if he was to do the same for all humanity through Christ, how could the giving of the law annul this promise? It could not, as even the human analogy of covenants and wills shows. Therefore, the law cannot add to, nor subtract from, God’s first and only way of salvation.

18 This verse adds an objective as well as temporal reason why the giving of the law cannot change the promise. Promise and law are antithetical by nature. They can be neither mingled together nor combined (cf. also v.12). In the last phrase the words “to Abraham” are emphasized, thereby once again driving all discussion of how men and women enter into a right relationship with God to its original source. The word “gave” (GK 5919) is important, because it emphasizes that salvation is both a free gift and is permanent. Whatever may be said about the law, this much is certain: God saved Abraham through promise, not law, and the original way of salvation is still operative.

4. Law versus covenant (3:19–22)

Paul has proved, at least to his own satisfaction and perhaps even to that of the Galatians, that the only way of salvation is by means of the promise received through faith. But the legalizers might object that the approach he has taken has actually proved too much. If the way of salvation is by promise and the law brings a curse, it would seem to follow (1) that the law has no purpose at all in the scheme of salvation, or (2) that it is actually opposed to it. This would be an intolerable conclusion for most, particularly those Jews whose lives had been dominated by the law for centuries. Paul answers these charges by denying both conclusions and by establishing God’s true purpose in giving the law: it was given not to save people but to reveal their sin, it was temporary, and it was inferior to the promise because, unlike the promise, it was given through a mediator.

19 To the question “What, then, was the purpose of the law?” Paul provides as his first answer that the law was added “because of transgressions” (GK 4126). That is, the law was given to make the transgressions known, perhaps even to encourage them or to provoke them to a new intensity (see also Ro 3:20; 4:15). Though sin was in the world before God gave the law, sin was not always known as such; it was the law that revealed sin as sin. Hence, it may be said that it is the law that turns sin into transgression—transgression of law—and even accentuates it (Ro 5:20). In this act, law performs the function of showing one’s need of a Savior.

The second half of this verse carries the thought further by showing that the giving of the law was temporary (“until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come”) and inferior (because it was “put into effect through angels by a mediator”). Here the mediator is doubtless Moses who, as an agent of a mediated revelation, is brought forward in contrast to Abraham, to whom God made promises directly. The role of angels in the giving of the law is suggested in Dt 33:2 and Ps 68:17 and is referred to explicitly in Ac 7:53 and Heb 2:2.

20 This verse is probably the most obscure verse in Galatians, if not in the entire NT. The difficulty lies in the abrupt, aphoristic character of the verse and in its relationship to Paul’s context. The most important interpretations fall into three categories:

(1) Those that take Paul’s reference to a “mediator” in a general sense. According to this approach, Paul is introducing a general principle in support of the point made at the end of the preceding verse. Mediators always act between parties. Hence, since Moses was a mediator of the law, it follows that he acted between God and the people and that the law thereby came indirectly. The last phrase suggests that in giving the promise to Abraham (see vv.15–18) God acted directly and unilaterally.

(2) Those that take the reference to a “mediator” as a specific reference to Moses, the mediator in the previous verse. This approach can obviously lead to an interpretation similar to that given above. However, it can also lead to other views, such one in which Moses is contrasted with Christ as one who was unable to be a mediator of “a perfectly united body.”

(3) Those that refer “the mediator” to Christ (cf. 1Ti 2:5). This view does not relate well to the context. If it is right, Paul would be acknowledging that even in Christianity there is a mediator, Christ; but he would be adding that since Christ is God as well as human, in Christ God is still dealing with people directly.

Whatever the details of the interpretation, the general thought seems to be that the promise must be considered superior to the law because the law is bilateral. That is, it was mediated, and; humankind was a party to it. The promise, on the other hand, is unilateral; humankind is not a party to it. This thought reinforces what Paul has said earlier about the unconditional and unilateral nature of the promises.

21 The second apparent conclusion the legalizers might take from Paul’s doctrine of justification is that the law becomes evil because it opposes grace as the true means of salvation. But this does not follow, Paul replies. It is an abhorrent idea, for it suggests a conflict within the nature of God, who gave both the law and the promise. True, the law increases transgressions (Ro 5:20) and it can even kill (Ro 7:7–11). Still, the law is not bad; it is good—so good that if a person could do what the law requires, that person would find life (Lev 18:5; cf. Gal 3:12).

22 Because it is impossible to find life through law, however, the law fulfills its actual function by shutting all people up within the bounds of acknowledged sin. It condemns them, with the result that they turn from trying to please God through legalism and instead receive the promise of God through faith in Jesus Christ. In the first part of this verse Paul summarizes the major truths of Ro 1:18–3:20, that the law shows that all have sinned and need a Savior. The second half of the verse reminds us that there is indeed a Savior and that it had always been God’s purpose to save a great company through faith in him. Seen from this angle, even the law flowed from God’s grace, because it prepared people to receive the Lord Jesus Christ when he came.

5. Heirs with Abraham (3:23–29)

The closing section of ch. 3 begins the third unit of Paul’s alternating answer to the question of v.2 (see diagram above). It follows directly on what Paul has said regarding the true purpose of the law. Still, a change has taken place. Before, he has been concerned with the law’s true purpose, which is to lead people to Christ. Now, though he begins with this point, he moves on to the idea of a change of status for those who have passed from being under the bondage of the law to being sons and daughters in Christ. Before, we were prisoners, shut up under the law. Now we are sons and daughters, reconciled to God and made one with each another and with all who throughout history have been justified on the basis of God’s promise.

23 The proper understanding of the phrase “before this faith came” is found in the fact that the definite article occurs before the word “faith.” By “this faith” Paul means “the Christian faith,” that faith he has just spoken of in v.22—faith in Jesus Christ as Savior (cf. 1Ti 4: 1 for a similar usage). This faith is like the faith exercised by Abraham, but it is different in that it relates to the explicit revelation of Christ in time and to the distinct Christian doctrines concerning him. Faith waited for this complete revelation. Paul’s point is that the law was intended to function only during this 1,500-year period of anticipation.

While the law was here, however, it did serve a purpose: to hold us prisoner, locking us up until Christ should be revealed (cf. v.22). Paul is thinking here that the law, like a jailer, has kept people locked up and therefore out of trouble until Christ, the liberator, should come to set them free.

24 The phrase “put in charge” is the Greek noun paidagogos (GK 4080), which means “a child-custodian” or “child-attendant.” The pedagogue was a slave employed by wealthy Greeks or Romans to have responsibility for one of the children of the family. He had charge of the child from about ages six to sixteen and was responsible for watching over his behavior wherever he went and for conducting him to and from school. Paul’s point is that this responsibility ceased when the child entered into the fullness of his position as a son, becoming an acknowledged adult by the formal rite of adoption by his father (see on 4:1–7). The reference “to Christ” is temporal; it means “until we come of age at the time of the revelation of our full sonship through Christ’s coming.” The final phrase (lit., “in order that by faith we might be justified”) gives the ultimate objective of the law in its role of pedagogue. The emphasis is on justification rather than faith, for Paul has already shown that faith is the only means to salvation.

25 The two most important points of the previous verses are repeated for emphasis: first, the time element—we were under the law as pedagogue until the faith should come; second, the reference to the fully revealed faith of Christianity. Paul is here thinking historically, stressing that the reign of law has ended for those believers who now through the coming of Jesus have become mature sons and daughters of God.

26 But what are the actual results of this passage from the reign of law to grace through faith in Jesus Christ? In the final verses of the chapter Paul lists three of them.

First, through faith in Christ all who believe become “sons of God”—i.e., they have passed through spiritual infancy into full maturity as justified persons. In view of Paul’s previous reference to the pedagogue, the mention of full-grown “sons” is particularly appropriate. Still we must not think of this as a matter of growth alone. To be true children of God means to be justified by faith in Christ and to have therefore passed into a new and right relationship to God. Before, they were under law, but now they are under grace. In this verse emphasis falls on the word “all.” All are included in these statements, the Galatians particularly.

27 This new relationship is not something that happens automatically to everyone. Not everyone is a child of God in the sense that Paul speaks of here. In fact, one can become a son or daughter only through union by faith with Christ Jesus.

Baptism signifies this transforming identification with Christ, so Paul refers to it here. Paul is not suggesting here that baptism now replaces circumcision as a saving sacrament. No one is saved by baptism. Indeed, Paul mentions baptism only once in the paragraph, but faith five times. Rather, baptism is an outward sign of the union that already exists through faith. To be “clothed with Christ” means to become like Christ.

28 The second result of passing from law to grace through faith in Jesus Christ is that all who believe become one with each other so that there is now “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,” but all are “one in Christ Jesus.” In what sense is this true? Clearly, it does not mean that differences of nationality, status, and sex cease to exist. A Jew remains a Jew; a Gentile, a Gentile. Instead, having become one with God as his sons and daughters, Christians now belong to each other in such a way that distinctions that had divided them lose significance.

Race is the first example. In Paul’s day there was a deep division between the two, not only nationally but also religiously. Gentiles were uncircumcised and therefore not children of Abraham. They did not have the law or the ceremonies; they were not of the covenant. This barrier Paul now claims to have been broken down in Christ (cf. Eph 2:11–18). Today this principle must be extended to deny the significance of all racial barriers. In Christ there must be neither black nor white, Caucasian nor Oriental, nor any other such distinction.

Social status is a second example (“slave nor free”). Again, this is not meant to deny that in actual fact there are social distinctions among people. It is merely meant to affirm that for those who are united to Christ these things do not matter. On this pattern the ideal church should be composed of members from all spectra of society: wealthy and poor, educated and uneducated, straight and long-hair, management and labor, and so on. When Christians treat each other as true brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of their social standing, then the power of such distinctions is broken and a basis is laid for social change.

There is also the example of sex, for Paul declares that there is neither “male nor female.” It is hard to imagine how badly women were treated in antiquity, even in Judaism, and how difficult it is to find any statement about the equality of the sexes, however weak, in any ancient texts except those of Christianity. Paul reverses this. Indeed, in this statement we have one factor in the gradual elevation and honoring of women that has been known in Christian lands.

When Paul concludes this breakdown of the distinctions that are superseded by Christianity, he speaks of the fact that all who are in Christ are “one,” one unified personality as the living body of Christ. In this body all are truly one with one another. The only permissible distinctions are those of function (cf. 1Co 12).

29 The third result of passing from law to grace through faith in Jesus Christ is that all who believe become one with those who have been saved by faith throughout the long history of salvation. Thus, by union with Christ, believers become “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Here that which Paul had previously declared to be Christ’s—the inheritance of the promise made to Abraham (3:16)—he now applies to the entire Christian church by virtue of its actually being Christ’s body. The verse carries the thought back to the beginning of the chapter.

The use of the word “seed” without the article is of great importance, for it keeps the necessity of a union with Christ constantly before the Galatians. The prize the legalizers had been holding before the eyes of the Galatian Christians in their hope to win them to the ceremonial aspects of Judaism was the possibility of becoming part of the physical seed of Abraham. Paul now replies that what the legalizers were offering through circumcision was actually already theirs in Christ. He is the seed to whom the promises were made. Believers enter into the promises by entering into him and become spiritual seed to God as well.

6. Heirs of God (4:1–7)

Paul gives his final contrast between God’s people before Christ’s coming and the position they enjoy now. The difference between these verses and 3:23–29 is in emphasis. Paul has been stressing the temporal nature of the change. At this point he dwells on their status, moving from being slaves to becoming sons and daughters of their heavenly Father. This development flows from the thought of the pedagogue in vv.23–29.

1–2 The moment of growing up was a definite one in antiquity, and it involved matters of great religious and legal importance. For instance, in Judaism a boy passed from adolescence to manhood shortly after his twelfth birthday, at which time he became “a son of the law.” In the Greek world the minor came of age at about eighteen, but there was the same emphasis on an entering into full responsibility as an adult. Roman law also had a time for the coming of age of a son, but the age when this took place does not seem to have been firmly fixed; the father apparently had discretion in setting the time of his son’s maturity. It seems likely that Paul is referring primarily to the Roman custom as he observed a child “under guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.” At that time the child was formally adopted by the father as his acknowledged son and heir and received special adult clothes.

When the child was a minor in the eyes of the law, his status was no different from that of a slave, even though he was the future owner of a vast estate. He could make no decisions, he had no freedom. But at the time set by his father, the child entered into his responsibility and freedom. The application of the illustration is obvious as Paul applies it to the inferior condition of people under law, both minors and slaves, and to the new freedom and responsibility that come to them in Christ.

3 Paul now applies the illustration as already indicated. Before Christ came we were children and slaves, slaves to the “basic principles” or “elemental spirits” (GK 5122) of the world (cf. v.9).

There has been much debate about what Paul means by this word here. Of the three major interpretations, the best one sees it as referring to the basic elements that the ancient world saw as making up the world—earth, fire, air, and water. These elements had been associated from the dawn of civilization with the gods. In Paul’s time it seems that this exceedingly early view had been expanded so that the elements also referred to the sun, moon, stars, and planets—all of them associated with gods or goddesses and, because they regulated the progression of the calendar (cf. “days and months and seasons and years” in vv.9–10), also associated with the great pagan festivals honoring the gods. In Paul’s mind these gods were demons (cf. “those who by nature are not gods” in v.8). Hence, he would be thinking of a demonic bondage in which the Galatians had indeed been held prior to the proclamation of the Gospel (cf. Ro 8:38–39; Eph 6:10–12). Thus, this whole issue takes on a cosmic and spiritual significance. The ultimate contrast to freedom in Christ is bondage to Satan and the evil spirits.

4–5 But God has set believers free! These are wonderful words, because they show that the entry of the Christian message is at the same time the turning point of history. Apart from these words, life offers no future hope for anyone. We are lost, without hope and without God (cf. Eph 2:12). But God has intervened in a way that brings an effective and complete salvation.

Paul goes on to spell out what God has done. First, he “sent his Son.” From the historical point of view, the fact that “the time had fully come” suggests several factors. It was a time when the Roman peace extended over most of the civilized earth and when travel and commerce were therefore possible in a way that had formerly been impossible. Great roads linked the empire of the Caesars, and its diverse regions were linked far more significantly by the all-pervasive language of the Greeks. Add the fact that the world was sunk in a moral abyss so low that even the pagans cried out against it and that spiritual hunger was everywhere evident, and one has a perfect time for the coming of Christ and for the early expansion of the Christian Gospel. Viewed theologically, however, it may also be said that the time was full because God himself had filled it with meaning.

Specifically, God sent his Son “to redeem” those who were under the law’s bondage and to provide the basis by which God is able “to adopt” them as sons and daughters. Redemption is mentioned here for the first time since 3:13 and is particularly appropriate in view of the imagery Paul is using. Redemption means “to buy out of slavery” (cf. comment on 3:13). People were slaves either to the law, as Jews, or to the “basic principles of the world,” as Gentiles. Christ paid the price of their redemption and set them free. Moreover, it is through him that human beings have the adoption. That is, they move not only from bondage into freedom; they also move into the household of God, where all are free and are “heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (Ro 8:17). Observe the subtle link between the central ideas of this verse and the phrase “weak and miserable principles” in v.9. The opposing powers are “weak” because they cannot redeem and “miserable” (or “poor”) because they cannot provide the adoption.

And who is the one through whom this great salvation comes? It is striking how much of the important Christian teaching about Jesus is revealed here. He is divine, for he is God’s “Son.” This speaks of an ontological relationship existing from eternity (Php 2:5–11; Col 1:15). He is human, for he was “born of a woman.” He was “under law”; i.e., he was born into Israel and thus within God’s historical stream of salvation. Paul may even be alluding here to the virgin birth.

6 Paul has already pointed out the first great redemptive act of God in history: God sent his Son. Here he adds the second act: “Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ ” In other words, to the other doctrines of the faith already spilling over from vv.4–5 Paul now adds Trinitarian teaching, for he is telling us that salvation consists in its fullness of acts by God the Father in sending both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this salvation is both objective and subjective. God the Father sent the Son in order that believers might have the position of sons and daughters, and he sent his Spirit so that they might have the experience of the same reality. We should notice that the gift of God’s Spirit is not something the children of God are to strive after as if, having been given salvation, they must now work to realize it or achieve it on a higher level. The Spirit is the gift of God to all believers because they are sons and daughters.

How do Christians experience what is theirs objectively? Paul suggests that this is primarily through the reality of God’s presence made known to them in prayer. Before, they were alienated from God, who indeed did not even hear them. Now, being made members of his family, Christians are permitted and even urged to cry, “Father.” “Abba” is the Aramaic word for “Father,” suggesting an intimate relationship with God. “Father” was the word Jesus habitually used in his prayers to God (e.g., Mt 11:25; Mk 14:36; Jn 11:41; 17:1, 5, 21, 24–25) and which he passed on to those who through him became God’s children (Mt 6:9).

7 This verse sums up all that Paul has said previously. Formerly slaves, Christians are now both children of God and heirs. It is connected with the previous verse in that the Spirit teaches us about our relationship with God as Father. The change from the plural of v.6 to the singular of v.7 brings the argument home to the individual reader. Each reader should therefore ask, “Do I know the reality of such an internal witness by God’s Spirit? Am I assured of these things?”

C. Paul’s Appeal to the Galatians (4:8–31)

1. A return to bondage (4:8–11)

At this point the formal argument for salvation by grace rather than by works is finished, but Paul seems unwilling to end the discussion without a direct and, indeed, lengthy appeal to the Galatians. He reminds his converts of their former bondage in paganism and expresses his astonishment that they could even consider a return to such slavery. In view of this possibility, he expresses concern that his labors among them may have been to no purpose.

8–9 For the third time (cf. 3:23ff.; 4:lff.) Paul speaks of the former enslaved state of the Galatians. His reason this time is to establish the folly of their proposed action of returning to the law’s bondage. In their former state of bondage and immaturity, they did not know the true God and worshiped instead those who were “no gods” (cf. Ro 1:18–23)—a clear reference to the idols of paganism.

Their former bondage was, of course, a matter of ignorance. But that they should voluntarily return to this bondage after having been delivered from such ignorance by God himself—this is astonishing and, indeed, totally incomprehensible. In essence, what Paul is saying here is this: “But how can it be that, on the one hand, having formerly been in ignorance of God and therefore enslaved to those who are not gods and, on the other hand, having come to know God or (which is more to the point) being known by him, you are now returning anew to those weak and bankrupt elements which once controlled you?”

There are three causes for Paul’s astonishment: (1) the Galatians were going back to what they had already been through—i.e., not to a new error but to an old one; (2) they were turning from reality (the true God) to nonreality (non-gods); and (3) this was done after they had actually come to “know” (GK 1182) God in an intimate and personal way.

Paul understands total spiritual depravity and the electing grace of God in such a manner that he does not want to leave the impression that it is possible for anyone to come to know God by his or her own efforts. The truth of the matter is that God comes to know us. We come to know him only because we are first “known [GK 1182] by God”—i.e., through Christ a Christian has become an object of God’s personal recognition and favor.

We have already seen why the elemental spirits or principles the Galatians were in the process of turning to are “weak and miserable” (lit., “powerless and bankrupt”); they are weak because they are unable to set people free, as Christ has done by redeeming them. They are bankrupt because they have no wealth by which they can provide an inheritance.

10 The Judaizers were probably not intentionally trying to enslave the Galatians, and it is even more probable that the Galatians did not regard their current drift toward legalism as a return to slavery. Yet that is precisely what it was, as Paul reminds them.

In the context of the struggle in Galatia, there is little doubt that the observances the Galatians were succumbing to were Jewish observances. “Days” refers to sabbath days and feasts that fell on specified dates; “months” refers to celebrations tied to the recurring monthly cycle; “seasons” refers to seasonal events, such as the feasts of Tabernacles, Passover, etc.; “years” most naturally refers to the recurring years of Jubilee. What is most significant, however, is not that Paul opposed these Jewish special days, in that observing them was but one step removed from a full Jewish legalism, but that he regards them in exactly the same light as the pagan festivals—i.e., as controlled by and interacting with demonic spirits (see comment on v.3).

This does not, of course, mean that Paul attributed the origin of the law, which includes the religious feasts, to Satan. Far from it. The law is good and comes from God (cf. Ro 7:12). Nevertheless, even the law, when distorted into a way of trying to earn salvation, can be used by Satan to increase human bondage. That Paul, the Jew, would even consider the Jewish observances in the same context as the pagan festivals shows the intensity of his estimate of the deadly character of legalism.

11 Can his readers have missed that point? If so, it comes to them once again as the same Paul who speaks elsewhere of the fact that nothing can ever separate Christians from the redeeming love of God (Ro 8:35–39) and who expresses confidence that the work begun in the Christian by God will be continued till the day of Christ (Php 1:6) now expresses the fear that his labor in bringing the Gospel to the people of Galatia might be wasted. This is not, to be sure, the same thing as saying that a Christian can lose salvation. Indeed, even the Galatians have not gone that far; they have only begun to observe the feasts and have not yet been circumcised (5:2). Nevertheless, they are wavering, and their wavering is inexplicable and inexcusable. It can only be that they are “nearsighted and blind” and have “forgotten” that they were cleansed from old sins (see 2Pe 1:9).

2. Their past and present relationships (4:12–20)

If the reader is inclined to think Paul has been impersonal in dealing with the problems at Galatia, the present passage should remove any suspicion. It is true that Paul has dealt with the issues facing the Galatians as doctrinal ones and has even been somewhat distant in addressing his converts, at best calling them “brothers” (cf. 1:11; 3:15). Now, however, all this changes, and his deep pastoral concern for the Galatians surfaces as he intensifies his appeal to them by again calling them “brothers” and then “dear children.” Moreover, he bases his appeal on their past and present relationship to one another; first, their past relationship to him (vv.12–16), and second, his past and present relationship to them (vv.17–20). He contrasts the former with their present actions; the latter he contrasts with the actions of the Judaizers.

12 The opening words of this verse are somewhat puzzling, for there is not enough said to know precisely what Paul is referring to. Most likely he is asking the Galatians to enter into the Christian freedom he knows, with the reminder that he had identified himself with them in order to preach the Gospel to them (cf. 1Co 9:20–22). That is, when Paul went to the Galatians, he did not stand on any special dignity or insist that the Galatians first come to him by becoming Jews. He became like them, in order to win them to Christ.

This is a principle of great importance for all who are trying to win other people for Christ. Our goal must be to make them like us, while the means to that end is to make ourselves like them. Witnessing involves doctrine, but it also involves the most personal involvement of the witness with those to whom he or she is witnessing.

13 “You have done me no wrong” (v.12) really belongs with vv.13–15, verses describing Paul’s original reception by the Galatians. They had received him graciously and with compassion (see v.14). And this was all the more remarkable since he had not been at his best when among them. He had been sick. In fact, illness had brought about his visit to Galatia in the first place. While many attempts have been made to identify the precise nature of Paul’s illness (e.g., malaria, the physical abuse and resulting weakness he had suffered at Lystra [Ac 14:19], his “thorn in the flesh” [2Co 12:7], or bad eyesight), the only thing we can say with certainty is that some form of unpleasant sickness lay behind Paul’s first visit to the Galatians and that, though they could have despised him because of it, they did not but, instead, received him favorably.

14 They actually received him as “an angel of God,” i.e., “as if I were Christ Jesus himself.” It is noteworthy that though Paul was well aware that he, like the Galatians, was a sinner, and though he had been careful when among them not to allow any conduct on their part that suggested worship of Paul (see Ac 14:8–18), nevertheless he does not suggest here that their respect for him as a messenger of God was in error. On the contrary, they were quite right to receive him in this manner. For he came among them as the approved messenger of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today there are no apostles. But to the degree that ministers and teachers of the Word of God do teach the Word, to that same degree should they be received as the Galatians received the apostle Paul. Ministers should not be received and evaluated on the basis of their personal appearance, intellectual attainments, or winsome manner, but as to whether or not they are indeed God’s messengers bearing the word of Christ.

15–16 In spite of their initial attitude toward Paul, their opinion of him had changed. The joy (lit., “blessedness,” GK 3422) they experienced as a result of his preaching had vanished, and they were now apparently regarding him as their enemy. If one thinks that Paul possibly suffered from bad eyesight (cf. 6:11), then the expression “you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me” refers to actual conversations they had at the time.

Why had Paul become their enemy? The only possible explanation is that he had become an offense to them through telling them the truth. Unfortunately, this is often the case for those who are faithful to Christ’s teaching.

17 Paul can appeal, not only to the former attitude of the Galatians or to the contrast between that and their actions in the present (vv.12–16), but also to his own attitude toward them. That attitude was guileless and in marked contrast to that of those who had since been attempting to woo the Galatians into legalism.

Paul notices two things about the actions of the legalizers: their zeal and their motives. Being “zealous” (GK 2420) is not bad in itself. This word can have two meanings: “to envy” and “to be deeply concerned for someone to the point of courting their favor”; both are implied here. Certainly Paul had been zealous with a godly jealousy (cf. 2Co 11:2) for the Galatians as he worked among them, and he encourages them to be zealous in regard to the Gospel. Zeal placed at the service of Christ is a fine characteristic. In the case of the legalizers, however, this zeal was misdirected, for it was a zeal for their own cause and glorification, and it was alienating the Galatians from both Paul and Christ.

There is here an interesting throwback to a previous verse. When Paul says that the Judaizers “want . . . to alienate you” (lit., “lock you up”), he is probably thinking of the function of the law in “locking” people up under sin (3:23). The locking up was the same action, but the purposes were different. The law served a proper function in locking people up as sinners so that they might find salvation in Christ. The legalizers, however, were trying to lock the Galatians up under law so that they might be separated from Christ and from Paul and serve their teachers. They must take note, for if that happens, the roles will be reversed, and the Galatians will find that they must court the legalizers. Failure to maintain Christian liberty always leads to ecclesiastical as well as other forms of bondage.

18 Though there are several possible meanings of this verse depending on who is exercising such zeal, it is best to refer the zeal to the Galatians, which Paul wishes was as intense now in pursuit of the right thing as it was when he was with them. This verse, then, makes a transition that, though somewhat abrupt, leads on to the thought of Paul’s having been with them in the past and of his wish to be with them once again if possible (v.20).

19 Paul now comes to his main point about the actions and motives of the legalizers: his own attitude to the Galatians was quite different. He had not come to them in order to build up his own personal following, as the false teachers had. He had come to help them—to see that they were born again and to labor for them until Christ himself should be formed in them. In calling the Galatians his “dear children” and in speaking of his labor “pains” on their behalf, Paul pictures himself as a mother who went through the pains of childbirth when they converted to Christ; he is now in labor again as the result of their apparent defection. He wants them to know that his present pastoral concern matches his evangelistic fervor; indeed, neither has diminished because of the Galatians’ listening to the legalizers.

20 We do not know why Paul was unable to visit Galatia again at this time, but if he could, he says he would change his “tone.” This does not mean that he would change his teaching or have fewer expectations of them, but his approach would be different. He could ask questions. He could find out why they were in the process of turning from freedom to bondage, and so he would no longer be perplexed. Perhaps he could even speak to them differently as he continued to recall them to the Gospel.

3. An appeal from allegory (4:21–31)

Commentators are sometimes embarrassed because Paul’s doctrinal argument in the central two chapters of Galatians concludes with an allegory based on what many consider an unjustified use of an OT story. But such embarrassment is unnecessary, as is the thought that the allegory was somewhat of an afterthought for Paul, who had, in fact, actually concluded his argument early in the fourth chapter. In one sense, the formal argument did conclude there; vv.8–31 are mostly an appeal to the Galatians to remain in that freedom to which God has called them.

However, one may also argue that Paul has deliberately saved this argument for his capstone. The advantages are these: (1) The allegory allows Paul to end on a final citation of the law and, in particular, on a passage involving Abraham, who has been his primary example. (2) It allows him to use a method of argument which, we may assume, had been used by the legalizers, thus turning their own style of exegesis against them. (3) It illustrates and reviews all his main points—the radical opposition between the principle of law and the principle of faith, the fact that life under law is a life of bondage and the life of faith is freedom, and that the life of faith is a result of the supernatural working of God by means of the Holy Spirit. (4) The story contains an emotional overtone suited both to a wrap-up of the formal argument and to a final personal appeal. (5) It gives Paul a base upon which to suggest what he had undoubtedly thought but had apparently been reluctant to say previously—that the Galatians should obey God by casting out the legalizers (v.30). Therefore, the allegory effectively ties together the doctrinal section of the letter and the appeal based on it, and it leads into chs. 5–6, the ethical section.

Paul introduces the facts of the story itself (vv.21–23), develops the allegory (vv.24–27), and then applies the allegory to the Galatians and indeed to all believers (vv.28–31). The latter section speaks of the supernatural basis of the new life in Christ, the inevitability of persecution for those who stand by the Gospel, and the need to so stand.

21 Paul has already appealed to statements of the law to show that the law brings a curse to those who desire to be under it (3:10–14). But that was both indirect and negative. Now he appeals directly and demands that those desiring to be under law hear what the law actually says and retreat from their folly. He does not yet consider that the Galatians have actually rejected the Gospel, only that they are desiring to reject it for law.

22 For the final time Paul turn to Abraham, upon whom the legalizers had undoubtedly based a large part of their argument. Jews derived much satisfaction from their physical descent from Abraham and in many cases considered the promises and blessings of God to be theirs because of it (see comment on 3:6; see also Mt 3:6; Jn 8:31–41). The present passage deals with the same issue, only Paul’s method of attack is slightly different from that of John the Baptist and Jesus. Instead of denying outright their descent from Abraham, Paul simply reminds his opponents that Abraham had two sons (Ishmael and Isaac) and asks, in effect, which of these two children the legalizers take after.

23 There were two main differences between these sons. (1) They were born of different mothers (v.22); one was a free woman, the other a slave. This, according to ancient law, also affected the sons’ status. (2) In the manner of their conception, Ishmael’s was entirely by natural means (Abraham was elderly at the time, but still the conception was natural), whereas Isaac’s was by means of a miracle (by this time Abraham had passed the age at which it was normally possible to engender children and Sarah was long past the age of conceiving them). Isaac was brought into being “as a result of a promise” from God.

This contrast lends itself well to the distinction Paul is trying to make between natural or man-made religion and supernatural or God-made religion. The religion of works and law corresponds to the natural birth of Ishmael; the religion of the Spirit, which is Christianity, corresponds to the supernatural birth of Isaac.

24–26 This basic distinction between the two sons and in the manner of their conception and birth Paul now carries out in more complete spiritual terms, using the historical account as an allegory. This does not mean that Paul’s exegesis is fanciful, as some have implied, but only that he uses the story for the sake of its major principle, which he then quite properly applies to the struggle between Judaism and Christianity. The best way to understand the allegory is to carry it through in parallel columns.

Hagar, the slave woman Ishmael, a natural birth The old covenant Earthly Jerusalem Judaism

Sarah, the free woman Isaac, a supernatural birth The new covenant Heavenly Jerusalem Christianity

In this arrangement Hagar, the slave woman, stands for the old covenant enacted at Mount Sinai, while her son, Ishmael, stands for Judaism with her center at earthly Jerusalem. On the other hand, Sarah, the free woman, stands for the new covenant enacted on Calvary through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and her son, Isaac, stands for all who have become part of the church of the heavenly Jerusalem through faith in Christ’s sacrifice. On the most superficial level, Isaac and Ishmael were alike in that both were sons of Abraham. But on a more fundamental level they were entirely different. In the same way, Paul argues, it is not enough merely to claim Abraham as one’s father (cf. Ro 9:6–9). The question is: Who is our mother and in what way were we born? If Hagar is our mother, then we were born of purely human means and are still slaves. If our mother is Sarah, then the birth was by promise, and we are free.

It is significant that when Paul contrasts “the present city of Jerusalem” with “the Jerusalem that is above” he mixes two metaphors so as to enrich his meaning. Strictly speaking, the phrase “the present city of Jerusalem” should be matched with “the Jerusalem that is to come,” and the phrase “the Jerusalem that is above” should be matched with “earthly Jerusalem.” These connotations are more or less evident. But by not actually saying “the Jerusalem that is to come,” Paul suggests that while it is true that there is a Jerusalem to come (Rev 21:2), this Jerusalem is also now present in those born again by God’s Spirit.

27 There is no evidence that the verse Paul now quotes (Isa 54:1) was ever associated with the story of Hagar and Sarah and their children; nevertheless, it is highly appropriate. This verse is a prophecy of Jerusalem’s restoration following the years of exile and involves the thought that the blessing of the latter years will be greater than that enjoyed formerly. The pre-exilic Jerusalem and the post-exilic Jerusalem correspond, then, to Paul’s distinction between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalems, and the promise to the blessings of God to Israel under the old covenant as contrasted with the greater blessings to the church under the new covenant. The element common to these verses is the supernatural intervention of God in order to establish Christianity. The new element is the suggestion, soon to be fulfilled, that the numbers of Christians will outnumber those within Judaism.

28–29 In the third section of this treatment of the Hagar and Sarah story, Paul applies the allegory to all Christians, pointing out that because they are like Isaac, who had a supernatural birth, rather than like Ishmael, their experiences will be consistently similar to that of the younger son.

In the first place, they must expect persecution from their brother. Paul is referring to Ge 21:8–13, when, at the weaning of Isaac (he was about two years old and his half-brother Ishmael about seventeen), Ishmael began “mocking” Isaac. Thus Sarah asked that Hagar and her son be sent away. So it is today, says Paul. True Christians will be persecuted (cf. Mt 5:10–12; Php 1:29; 1Th 3:1–4; 2Ti 3:12; 1Pe 4:12—13). And the remarkable thing is that this will not always be by the world but indeed more often by their half-brothers—the unbelieving but religious people in the nominal church. This is the lesson of history. It was the Jews who killed the prophets, not the Gentiles. It was the Pharisees and other religious leaders who opposed Jesus and instigated his execution, which was carried out by the Romans. Paul’s fiercest opponents were the fanatically religious Judaizers. Today the greatest enemies of the believing church are found among the members of the unbelieving church, the greatest opposition emanating from the pulpits and church hierarchies.

30 Second, the Christians at Galatia must recognize the incompatibility of man-made and God-made religion and respond by casting out the legalizers. Those born after the flesh (v.29) will never share in the inheritance God has reserved for his true children, born after the Spirit. Therefore, Christians must reject both legalism and those who teach it. Taking a story from Genesis that the Jews undoubtedly interpreted as a statement of God’s rejection of the Gentiles and applying it instead to the exclusion of unbelieving Jews from Christianity probably infuriated Paul’s opponents, but his point was well taken. God does not look on physical descent but on spiritual affinity. The true sons of Abraham are those who are born of the Spirit.

31 Of such are the Galatians. The “therefore” of this verse sums up the whole allegory and indeed the entire section of Paul’s doctrinal argument. The shift to the first person (“we”) once again includes both Paul himself and all who embrace the true Gospel.

III. The Call to Godly Living (5:1–6:10)

A. Summary and Transition (5:1)

Paul has already reached two important goals in his appeal to the Galatians. He has defended his apostleship, including a defense of his right to preach the Gospel with or without the support of other human authorities (1:11–2:21), and he has defended the Gospel itself, showing that it is by grace alone, apart from human works, and that the Christian is freed from the curse of the law and brought into a right relationship with God (3:1–4:31). But Paul must make one more point before he concludes his letter: that the liberty into which believers are called is not a liberty that leads to license, as his opponents charged, but rather a liberty that leads to mature responsibility and holiness before God through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This theme dominates his last two chapters.

1 Before plunging into this third section of his letter, Paul interjects a verse that both summarizes all that has gone before and serves as a transition to what follows. It is, in fact, the key verse of the entire letter. Because of the nature of the true Gospel and of the work of Christ on their behalf, believers must now turn away from anything that smacks of legalism and instead rest in Christ’s triumphant work for them and live in the power of the Spirit. The first part of this verse aptly sums up the message of chs. 3–4, while the second part leads into the ethical section. Paul appeals for an obstinate perseverance in freedom as the only proper response to any attempt to bring Christians once more under legalism.

Since the Jews of Paul’s time spoke of taking the yoke of the law upon themselves, Paul probably alludes to such an expression here. To the Jews taking up the law’s yoke was the essence of religion; to Paul it was assuming the yoke of slavery. He may also be remembering Jesus’ reference to Christians taking his yoke upon them (Mt 11:29–30), but his yoke was “easy” and “light.”

B. The Danger of Falling From Grace (5:2–12)

The reader may think that in the opening verses of ch. 5 Paul reverts back to a theme he has already covered and so departs from his purpose to move on to the ethical section. But such reasoning misses an important point—that even the ethical life must begin by recognizing that the foundation of God’s dealings with us is grace through faith rather than obedience to the law. “Do you wish to lead a holy life?” Paul seems to be asking. “Then begin with the principles of faith and shun legalism. Holiness will never come as the result of insisting on adherence to either man-made or even God-made regulations.” He makes this point twice here: first, from the viewpoint of those who, like the Galatians, seem about to fall into legalism (vv.2–6) and, second, by referring to those who teach such false doctrines (vv.7–12).

2 Paul wants the Galatians to take careful note that if they allow themselves to be circumcised (the verb tense used here implies that they had not yet taken this step but were considering it), then Jesus Christ will profit them absolutely nothing. Circumcision was, of course, the particular form of legalism that was a problem in Paul’s day; the choice was between Christ and no circumcision at all, or circumcision and no Christ at all.

This explains why Paul is so categorical in condemning the practice of circumcision for the Galatians. It is not that circumcision in itself is so important. In fact, Paul himself had once circumcised Timothy (Ac 16:3), and he would soon declare that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (v.6). Rather, what Paul condemns is the theology of circumcision, which makes works necessary for salvation and seeks to establish conformity to some external standards of behavior as a mark of spirituality.

Ones’s motivation is the important thing. Paul was in no sense condemning those Jewish Christians who had been circumcised. His advice to such people is given in 1Co 7:17–20: circumcised Christians should remain circumcised; uncircumcised Christians should remain uncircumcised. Particular forms of legalism are not themselves the important issues; the critical issue is works versus grace, or, as we will soon see, spirit versus flesh. Paul’s concern was that nothing should cloud perception of this central Christian doctrine.

3 Paul has already stated that to fall into circumcision is to lose the value of Christ’s death both for salvation and for living the Christian life. Now he adds another reason why the Galatians should remain firm in the freedom Christ has given them: to choose circumcision is to choose legalism, which in turn involves taking on the burden of the entire law—something that the legalizers had probably not warned the Galatians about.

4 Paul again states his points, this time dropping the hypothetical “if” for the strong assertion that those who want to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ and have fallen away from grace. Christ is of no value to them and the burden of keeping the whole law is theirs.

What does “You have fallen away from grace” mean? Does it mean, as some claim, that salvation can be lost if a Christian falls into sins? Not at all. There is a sense in which to sin is to fall into grace, if one is repentant. But to fall from grace, as seen by this context, is to fall into legalism. Or to put it another way, to choose legalism is to relinquish grace as the principle by which one desires to be related to God.

5 The essence of that message of the Gospel is now brought forward in the last full statement of the principle of justification by faith in this letter. Up to this point Paul has been talking only of the Galatians (cf. the pronoun “you”), warning them about what they seemed to be doing. Now he changes to “we,” emphasizing something like this: “But, on the other hand, we Christians do not choose legalism; rather, we wait in faith through the Spirit for the full realization of God’s righteousness.”

Each phrase in this verse is important and has already been defined. “By faith”: this key word stands in contrast to human effort, as all should be aware from the arguments of chs. 3–4. “We eagerly await”: Christians wait for the full realization of their salvation. They do not work for it; they wait for it. “Through the Spirit”: this is a reminder of the electing grace of God in salvation. “The righteousness for which we hope”: this does not refer to that imputed righteousness the believer has in the present through faith in Christ’s death, but rather (in line with the ethical section to follow) to that actual righteousness in which believers grow and to which they will be perfectly conformed in glory. In the Bible, “hope” (GK 1827 & 1828) refers to that which, though certain, is not yet fully realized.

6 Paul makes two final points as he wraps up the first half of this section. In doing so, he comes close to giving a full and beautiful definition of true Christianity. (1) As hard as Paul has been on circumcision and as much as it would serve his purpose to downgrade it in preference to uncircumcision, he nevertheless acknowledges that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision in themselves counts for anything. This is further evidence that his concern is theological and not ceremonial (cf. a similar point made about eating meat offered to idols in 1Co 8:8).

(2) True faith, having an ethical side, works itself out “through love.” This is what matters—this kind of faith! True, we are saved through faith rather than by works; but faith is no mere intellectual conviction, as if Christians can do as they wish as long as they believe the right doctrines. This is a horrible idea, as Paul writes elsewhere (Ro 6:1–2). To believe is to place one’s personal confidence in Christ, who loves us and gave himself for us. Therefore, Christians must respond in a genuine and self-denying love for others.

In vv.5–6 the three great terms “faith” (GK 4411), “hope” (GK 1828), and “love” (GK 27) appear together (cf. 1Co 13; Col 1:4–5; 1Th 1:3; et al.).

7 Up to here in this section Paul has been contrasting those who desire to add circumcision to Christianity and true believers who trust Christ alone. Now the contrast changes to a false teacher or teachers, designated as “the one who is throwing you into confusion” (v.10), versus “I” (i.e., Paul, who is teaching correctly).

Paul was fond of using athletic imagery to describe the Christian life, often including himself as a competitor (1Co 9:24–27; Gal 2:2; Php 3:13–14; 2Ti 4:7). To him life is a race, demanding adherence to rules and discipline if the race is to be completed successfully and a prize obtained. Here he applies the imagery to his converts. The Galatians had begun the race well. They had both assented to certain truths and adopted a Christian lifestyle. In other words, theirs was both a head and a heart religion. This is the full meaning of the phrase “obeying the truth.” In spite of this good beginning, however, something had obviously gone wrong. Someone had hindered them by setting up an obstacle in front of them. In Paul’s analogy, this probably refers to the illegal interference of a runner who cuts in ahead of another and thereby disadvantages that runner. Thus, the situation at Galatia was one in which the Galatians had already ceased, in some measure, to obey the plain truth of the Gospel.

8 But what should be said regarding the false teacher(s)? Much indeed. In three succinct statements Paul traces the origin, results, and end of such doctrine. (1) Somewhat understating the case, Paul says that the origin of the doctrine of salvation by works does not lie in “the one who calls you” (i.e., God; cf. 1:6). Rather, it proceeds from that which is hostile to God’s grace. Though Paul does not say that it originates with Satan, that may well be the case.

9 (2) As the present results of such teaching, Paul asserts that it spreads. It is permeating, insidious, and therefore dangerous. No doubt Paul is quoting a proverb at this point (cf. 1Co 5:6). False teaching, like yeast, grows and affects everything it touches. Therefore, this alone would justify Paul’s alarm at the state of affairs in the Galatian churches.

10 (3) Even though evil spreads, God will not permit it to triumph ultimately. In fact, its end is the opposite. Paul concludes with an optimistic expression of his confidence that the Galatians will return to a right mind and that the false teacher(s) will suffer God’s judgment. What does “no other view” refer to? Does it mean “no other view” than the true Gospel? Than their first opinions formed as the result of Paul’s teaching? Or than what Paul has just said regarding the origin and danger of the legalizers’ teaching? The answer is not given. Any of the three is possible, and indeed Paul may have all of them in mind.

11 Two personal remarks conclude the section. The first presents a difficulty. What does Paul mean by saying, “If I am still preaching circumcision”? This cannot refer to his pre-Christian days only, for there would be no point to the criticism in that case. Furthermore, Paul links his alleged preaching to times in which he was persecuted as a Christian. But could anyone have actually made that claim about Paul? The most likely explanation is simply that Paul’s words are a reply to an accusation that he did preach circumcision when it suited him, however unfounded or unlikely that accusation was. That accusation could have originated from views such as those expressed in 1Co 7:18 or from Paul’s circumcision of Timothy (Ac 16:3).

The “offense [GK 4998] of the cross” is an important concept in Paul and is an important reference in this context. Paul suggests that the preaching of the cross is so offensive to the natural mind that it arouses fierce opposition. But why should Paul link his refusal to approve circumcision for Gentiles to the offense of the cross? Obviously, for the same reason that he opposed it or any other human effort generally. All these things—feasts, circumcision, ceremonies, legal observances, or anything symbolizing external religion—are part of a system that seeks to attain standing before God through merit. In contrast, the cross proclaims our complete ruin in sin, so that nothing we do or can do can save us, and thus it also proclaims our radical need for God’s grace. The natural self does not understand such teaching (1Co 2:14) and, in fact, hates it, because it strips away any pretense of spiritual achievement.

12 The second of Paul’s personal remarks concerns the legalizers. It is his wish, expressed somewhat obliquely, that they would not stop with circumcision in their zeal for ordinances but rather would go on to castration. Sacral castration was known to citizens of the ancient pagan world. But for Paul to compare the ancient Jewish rite of circumcision to pagan practices even in this way is startling. Not only does it put the efforts of the Judaizers to have the Gentiles circumcised on the same level as abhorred pagan practices, but it actually links this desire to that which in Judaism disbarred one from the congregation of the Lord (Dt 23:1).

To many in our day Paul’s expression sounds coarse and his wish reprehensible. But we may be sure that Paul did not speak out of a malicious spirit or in ill temper. He spoke out of a concern for the Gospel of grace and for God’s truth. We too should wish that false teachers stop afflicting our churches.

C. Life in the Spirit (5:13–26)

Paul has already spoken of freedom several times in this letter (2:4; 4:26, 31; 5:1)—one of his central themes. But up to here, he has not defined it, at least not in practical terms dealing with the ethical life. Now he does so, showing not only what the true nature of Christian freedom is but also that only through the Spirit and by the Spirit’s power can Christians live for God and not fulfill the desires of their sinful nature. Negatively, freedom in Christ is not license. Positively, it is service both to God and to other people and expresses itself in the great Christian virtues. This latter point is emphasized by two contrasting catalogs of the works of the sinful human nature versus the fruit of the Spirit.

One reason why Paul adds this section to his letter is to show what he means by “faith expressing itself through love” (v.6). A second reason is apparently to counter developing strife and divisiveness in the churches of Galatia, for the verses speak of a “biting,” “devouring,” and “destroying” of each other. The greatest reason, however, is undoubtedly Paul’s desire to complete his portrait of true Christianity by showing that the freedom we have been called to in Christ is a responsible freedom that leads to holiness of life. Called to freedom? Yes! But this is a freedom to serve God and others as love dictates! Paul has in mind the fear within Judaism that a faith without law would not be sufficiently strong to resist the ethical debauchery of paganism.

1. Liberty is not license (5:13–18)

13 Like v.1, this verse is transitional and marks a new beginning. “You” is emphatic, showing that Paul is building on the confidence expressed earlier as to what side the Galatians are on (v.10). He echoes here the original challenge of v.1, but follows it up this time with a warning not to allow this freedom to become an excuse for sinful self-indulgence. Here the contrast is between indulgence and the serving of one another in love.

Christians must not allow their freedom in Christ to become a beachhead for the armies of indulgence to gain a foothold (“indulge,” GK 929; cf. 2Co 11:12) in their lives. Paul’s reference to “the sinful nature” (sarx; GK 4922) means all that a person is and is capable of doing as a sinful human being apart from the unmerited intervention of God’s Spirit (see comment on v.16).

It is ironical that, having urged the Galatians not to become slaves to law, Paul should now encourage them to become slaves of one another, for that is what “serve” (GK 1526) means. It is a paradox, but the paradox is instructive. The Galatians are to be slaves of one another, though this slavery is not at all like the first. In fact—this is the paradox—it is the Christian form of being free. Slavery to sin is involuntary and terrible; a person is born into sin (Ps 51:5) and cannot escape it (Ro 7:18). Slavery to law, which comes by choice, is foolish and burdensome. On the other hand, slavery to one another is voluntary and a source of deep joy. It is possible only because Christians are delivered through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit from the necessity of serving sin in their lives.

14 Throughout his letter Paul has been arguing against law and in defense of the Gospel of pure grace. Now, in a most striking fashion, he returns to law and seems to speak favorably of it, stressing that when Christians love and serve others, the law is fulfilled. There is a play on two meanings of the Greek word translated “summed up” (GK 4444). On the one hand, it refers to the fact that the law can aptly be summarized by Lev 19:18 (a common rabbinic opinion, also endorsed by Jesus in Mt 22:39; Lk 10:25–28). On the other hand, the word can mean “fulfilled” (cf. Ro 13:8); in this sense Paul is suggesting that it is actually out of the new life of love made possible within the Christian community through the Spirit that the law finds fulfillment.

This use of the word “law” (GK 3795) is most instructive, because it shows that in spite of all Paul has said, there remains a sense in which the requirements of the law are a proper concern for Christians. This does not mean that the Christian is to make progress in holiness by once again setting up a system of rules and regulations. But the essential ends of the law will be met in those who, being called by God and being filled with the Spirit, allow God to produce the Spirit’s fruit within them. Faith in Christ is the bond that forms the basis for the fulfillment of God’s holy will in one’s life.

15 It is not hard to imagine the kind of strife that may have been present in the Galatian churches, either strife parallel to that of the Corinthians (1Co 1:10–12; 3:1–4) or strife arising directly out of the conflict with the legalizes. Paul does not say precisely what it was, but intense strife was definitely going on among the Galatians.

16 What is the solution to such biting, devouring, and destroying that is all too common among Christian assemblies? The answer, Paul says, is to “live by the Spirit.” Then, and only then, will one cease to gratify the desires of the flesh. It is the Spirit alone who can keep the believer truly free.

The contrast between sarx (“flesh”; NIV “sinful nature”; GK 4922), on the one hand, and pneuma (“spirit”; GK 4460), on the other, is one of the characteristic themes in NT, and particularly Pauline, theology. It is as important, for instance, as the contrast between the observance of the law and the hearing of faith that has thus far dominated the letter. Although sarx can mean the whole person as conditioned by a bodily existence and by natural desires, in Christian vocabulary (especially in Paul), it came to mean a human being as fallen, whose desires even at best originate from sin and are stained by it. Thus, sarx came to mean all the evil that one is capable of apart from the intervention of God’s grace in one’s life; i.e., it is synonymous with “the natural man,” “the old nature,” or “the sinful nature.” Sarx also contains thoughts of human limitation, both intellectually and morally (Ro 7:18). Thus, that which is flesh is incapable of knowing God apart from special revelation and the redemption that removes the barrier of sin (cf. 1Co 2:14).

The other term is pneuma, usually translated “spirit.” Its earliest meaning is “wind,” “air,” “breath,” or “life.” Later it came to refer to the incorporeal part of a person, which (like breath) leaves at death. These meanings do occur in the NT. But the main emphasis is always on “spirit” as the Spirit of God or related to the Spirit of God. Indeed, it is because God breathes his spirit or breath into a person that that person has breath (cf. Ge 2:7). The incorporeal part of a human being has God-consciousness. In distinctly religious terminology, the Spirit of God takes up residence in Christians to enable them to understand spiritual things (1Co 2:14), receive Christ as Savior and Lord, call God “Father” (Ro 8:15; Gal 4:6), and develop a Christian personality. The Spirit is thus the presence of God in a person, through whom fellowship with God is made possible and power given for winning the warfare against sin in the soul.

The Spirit is not natural to a human being in one’s fallen state. But this does not mean that by the gift of the Spirit a redeemed person escapes the need to struggle against sin. The Spirit simply makes victory possible—and that only to the degree that the believer “lives by the Spirit” or “walks” in him.

17 A characteristic of the contrast between sarx and pneuma is that the two principles are in deep and irreconcilable conflict. In the sense in which Paul uses the words, the sinful nature does no good and does not desire good, whereas the spirit does no evil and, indeed, opposes anything that does not please God (see Ro 7 for a fuller discussion of this same principle).

The last clause of this verse probably means that the sinful nature keeps a person from doing the good he or she desires (see Ro 7:15–16). Some have maintained that there is no conflict within the Christian because the old nature governed by the “flesh” has supposedly been eradicated. But this is not true. Naturally, the sinful nature is to become increasingly subdued as the Christian learns by grace to walk in the Spirit, but it is never eliminated in this life. So the Christian is never released from the necessity of consciously choosing to go in God’s way and to depend on his grace.

18 The final verse of this section is best taken as a summary in which Paul reminds the Galatians that, though he is now talking of the need to live a godly life, he is not thereby reverting to legalism. Life by the Spirit is neither legalism nor license—nor a middle way between them. It is a life of faith and love that allows a person to be led by the Spirit.

2. The works of the sinful nature (5:19–21)

That pneuma and sarx (see comment on v.16) are in conflict is now illustrated by contrasting lists of the works of the sinful nature and of the fruit of the Spirit. At the same time, the lists are more than a mere proof of what he has written earlier. For by raising these particulars of conduct, he also provides a checklist for measuring the conduct of those who consider themselves spiritual. If one’s conduct is characterized by the traits in the first list, then he or she is either not a believer or else a believer who is not being led by God’s Spirit.

19 When Paul says that the “acts of the sinful nature” are obvious, he does not mean that they are all committed publicly where they may be seen. Some are, some are not. Instead, he means that it is obvious to all that such acts originate with the sinful nature, not with the nature given believers by God. Here the full scope of the word sarx (“flesh”) becomes evident, for the list not only contains the so-called “fleshly” sins, but it also contains sins that emanate from every part of human nature.

Four divisions of sin are obvious in his list: (1) three violations of sexual morality; (2) two sins from the religious realm; (3) eight sins pertaining to conduct in regard to other human beings—i.e., social sins; and (4) two typically pagan sins.

(1) The first three words cover sexual sins. They are obviously intended to be somewhat comprehensive and inclusive. “Sexual immorality” or “fornication” (porneia; GK 4518) is the broadest term, denoting any immoral sexual intercourse or relationship. In starting with this vice, Paul begins with what was acknowledged to be the most open and shameless vice of the Greek and Roman world. “Impurity” (GK 174) refers to a person who was either morally or ceremonially unclean. Paul uses it almost exclusively of moral impurity. “Debauchery” (GK 816; cf. also 2Co 12:21) is an open and shameless contempt of what is proper. In this regard it is a fitting term for what is probably intended to be a climax of several evils.

20 (2) Paul goes on to list two sins of religion: “idolatry” (GK 1630), the worship of the creature rather than the Creator (Ro 1:21—25), and “witchcraft” (GK 5758), a secret tampering with and at times a worship of the powers of evil. These two terms are arranged in an ascending horror of evil and indicate that the works of the sinful nature include offenses against God as well as against ourselves or our neighbors.

(3) Neighbors are in view in the third section of Paul’s list, since it includes much of what would today be called social offenses. Most of the words are self-explanatory. “Hatred” (GK 2397) means “enmities,” such as those between classes, nations, and individuals. It is these enmities that have been broken down for those who are in Christ (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:14–16). “Discord” (GK 2251) is the natural outcome of hatred both in the world and in the church. Four out of six of Paul’s uses of the word are connected with church life. “Jealousy” (GK 2419) and “fits of rage” (GK 2596) can denote both good and bad qualities. There is a godly jealousy or zeal (see comment on 4:17) as well as righteous anger. When either originates from selfish motives and hurt pride, however, it is evil and harms others. “Selfish ambition” (GK 2249) may be translated in many ways: contention, strife, selfishness, rivalry, intrigues. Its basic meaning is a selfish and self-aggrandizing approach to work. “Dissensions” (GK 1496) and “factions” (GK 146) denote a state of affairs in which people are divided and feuds flourish.

21 “Envy” (GK 5784) is so closely related to “jealousy” that it is hard to tell the difference between them, except for the fact that this attitude is always bad. This third set of words shows the sinful nature to be responsible for the breakdown in interpersonal relationships seen in all strata of society.

(4) The final grouping is concerned with sins of alcohol: “drunkenness” (GK 3494) and “orgies” (GK 3269). They denote pleasures that have degenerated into debauchery. There are more items that could be mentioned, for when Paul adds “and the like,” he indicates that the list is not exhaustive.

Paul adds a solemn warning, saying that those who habitually practice such things will never inherit God’s kingdom. This does not mean that if Christians fall into an isolated lapse into sin through getting drunk or some such thing, they thereby lose their salvation. Rather, Paul is referring to a habitual continuation in sins of the sinful nature, and his point is that those who continually practice such sins give evidence of having never received God’s Spirit. When he says that he warned the Galatians of this previously (presumably when he was among them), he reveals that his preaching was never what one might call mere evangelism but that it always contained a strong dose of the standard of morality expected from Christians.

The reference to the “kingdom [GK 993] of God” introduces an entirely new and large subject, one that is an important and complex idea in the New Testament (see comment on Mk 1:15). Here, however, Paul is doubtless thinking of God’s kingdom only in an eschatological sense. The phrase “will not inherit” carries the thought back to Paul’s words about Abraham in ch. 3. His point is that those who keep on living in the sinful nature give evidence that they are not Abraham’s seed and therefore will not inherit salvation.

3. The fruit of the Spirit (5:22–26)

Paul continues his contrast between the natural productions of the sinful nature and Spirit that he had begun in v.19. Here, however, he speaks of the “fruit” (GK 2843) of the Spirit (using both a new term and the singular form) in contrast to the “acts” (v.19; GK 2240) or works of which the sinful nature is capable. The term “acts” already has definite overtones in this letter. It refers to what a human being can do, which, in the case of the works of the law (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10), has already been shown to be inadequate. The fruit of the Spirit, on the other hand, suggests that which is a natural product of the Spirit, made possible by the living relationship between the Christian and God through Christ (cf. 2:20; Jn 15:1—17). The singular form stresses that these qualities are a unity, like a bunch of grapes instead of separate pieces of fruit, and also that they should all be found in all Christians. In this they differ from the “gifts” of the Spirit, which are given one by one to different people as the church has need (1Co 12).

The nine virtues that are the Spirit’s fruit hardly need classification, though they seem to fall into three categories of three each. The first three comprise general Christian habits of mind; their primary direction is Godward. The second set primarily concerns Christians in their relationship to others and are social virtues. The last three concern Christians as they are to be in themselves.

22 It is appropriate that “love” (agape; GK 26) should head the list of the Spirit’s fruit, for “God is love” (1Jn 4:8), and the greatest of Christian qualities is love (1Co 13:13). In biblical texts it is the association of agape with God that gives the word its distinctive character. Divine love is unmerited (Ro 5:8), great (Eph 2:4), transforming (Ro 5:5), and unchangeable (Ro 8:35–39). It is this love that sent Christ to die for sinners and that perseveres with them in spite of their willfulness and desire to sin. Now because the Spirit of Christ is living within them, believers must show love both to other Christians and to the world. By this, people will know that Christians are indeed Christ’s disciples (Jn 13:35).

“Joy” (GK 5915) is the virtue in the Christian life corresponding to happiness in the secular world. On the surface they seem related. But happiness depends on circumstances, whereas joy does not. In the NT a form of the word “joy” becomes a typical Christian greeting (Mt 28:9; Lk 1:28; Ac 15:23; 2Co 13: 11; Jas 1:1). Joy is particularly full when what was lost spiritually is found (Lk 15:6–7, 9–10, 32).

The second of the two most popular Christian greetings is “peace” (GK 1645; see comment on 1:3). Above all, peace is God’s gift to us, achieved by him at the cross of Christ. It is peace with God (Ro 5:1) and expresses itself both in peace of mind (Php 4:6–7) and in a practical peace between all those who know God. This latter peace should be seen in the home (1Co 7:12–16), between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14–17), within the church (Eph 4:3; Col 3:15), and indeed in all relationships of believers with other people (Ro 12:18; Heb 12:14). Moreover, Christians are to strive for it (1Pe 3: 11). The importance of this word is evident in that it occurs in every NT book and eighty times altogether.

“Patience” (GK 3429) is the quality of putting up with others, even when one is severely tried. The importance of patience is evidenced by its frequently being used to describe the character of God, as in the great text from Joel: “Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13).

“Kindness” (GK 5983) is the divine kindness out of which God acts toward humankind. It is what the OT means when it declares that “God is good,” as it so frequently does. Christians should show kindness by behaving toward others as God has behaved toward them.

“Goodness” (GK 20) is hard to define. Though it is related to “kindness,” it differs from it in being a more active term. The primary idea seems to be generosity that springs from kindness.

The last three virtues are concerned with Christians primarily as they are to be in themselves. They are to be characterized by “faithfulness” (GK 4411), a word that also means “faith,” but undoubtedly here means that which makes a person one on whom others can rely—i.e., trustworthiness or reliability. This word describes a faithful servant (Lk 16:10–12), including servants of the Gospel and of Christ (1Ti 1:12; 2Ti 2:2). It describes the character of those who will die for their confession of Christ (Rev 2:10; 3:14). It goes without saying that it is also descriptive of the character of Christ, the faithful witness (Rev 1:5), and of God the Father, who always acts faithfully toward his people (1Co 1:9; 10:13; 1Th 5:24; 2Th 3:3).

23 “Gentleness” (GK 4559) describes those who are so much in control of themselves that they are always angry at the right time and never angry at the wrong time—e.g., Moses, who is praised for being the gentlest or meekest man on earth (Nu 12:3). This is the spirit in which discipline must be applied and faults corrected (Gal 6:1). It is also the virtue for meeting opposition (2Ti 2:25) and for giving a Christian witness (1Pe 3:15–16).

“Self-control” (GK 1602) is the quality that gives victory over sinful desires and is therefore closely related to chastity both in mind and conduct. This quality enables a person to live and walk in this world without getting one’s garments spotted by the world.

These are the qualities of the life that has been claimed by Jesus Christ and is led by the Spirit. “Against such things there is no law” (v.23b). The last clause is most likely an understatement used for rhetorical effect. The law, as Paul has said, was given to restrain evil; but these qualities do not need to be restrained. Hence, no law opposes them. There may also be a sense in which Paul is suggesting that the law cannot be against those who live in this manner because by being so led, they are in principle fulfilling all that the law requires.

The Fruit of the Spirit

The aspects of the fruit of the Spirit advocated by Paul in Galatians 5:22–23 occur not only here but also elsewhere in the Scriptures. Most of the attributes are those by which God him self lives.

Aspect	GK number	Definition	Attribute of God	Attribute for Christians
love	26	sacrificial, unmerited deeds to help a needy person	Ex 34:6; Jn 3:16; Ro 5:8; 1 Jn 4:8, 16	Jn 13:34–35; Ro 12:9–10; 1Pe 1:22; 1Jn 4:7, 11–12, 21
joy	5915	an inner happiness not dependent on outward circumstances	Ps 104:31; Isa 62:5; Lk 15:7, 10	Dt 12:7, 12, 18; Ps 64:10; Isa 25:9; Php 4:4; 1Pe 1:8
peace	1645	harmony in all relationships	Isa 9:6–7; Eze 34:25; Jn 14:27; Heb 13:20	Isa 26:3; Ro 5:1; 12:18; 14:17; Eph 2:1 4–17
patience	3429	putting up with others, even when one is severely tried	Ro 9:22; 1Ti 1:16; 1Pe 3:20; 2Pe 3:9, 15	Eph 4:2; Col 1:11; Heb 6:12; Jas 5:7–8, 10
kindness	5983	doing thoughtful deeds for others	Ro 2:4; 11:22; Eph 2:7; Tit 3:4	1Co 13:4; Eph 4:32; Col 3:12
goodness	20	showing generosity to others	Ne 9:25, 35; Ps 31:19; Mk 10:18	Ro 15:14; Eph 5:9; 2Th 1:11
faithfulness	4411	trustworthiness and reliability	Ps 33:4; 1Co 1:9; 10:13; Heb 10:23; 1Jn 1:9	Lk 16:10–12; 2Th 1:4; 2Ti 4:7; Tit 2:10
gentleness	4559	meekness and humility	Zee 9:9; Mt 11:29	Isa 66:2; Mt 5:5; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12
self-control	1602	victory over sinful desires		Pr 16:32; Tit 1:8; 2:12; 1Pe 5:8–9; 2Pe 1:6

24 It should be evident by this time that the warfare between the sinful nature and the Spirit is both intense and unremitting. The qualities of each are fundamentally opposite, and those who feel caught in this warfare cannot do the good they would like to do. How, then, is victory to be achieved? What must believers do to triumph? In the final verses of this chapter Paul gives two answers.

First, he reminds his readers that when they came to Christ, they repented fully of the works of the sinful nature and indeed turned their backs on them forever. This act they must sustain. In speaking of this radical repentance, Paul uses the vivid image of crucifixion, though in a different way from such passages as Ro 6:6 and Gal 2:20. In those instances, the verb is in the passive voice (“was crucified,” “have been crucified”), and the reference is to what has been done for believers as a result of Christ’s death. But in this passage the verb is in the active voice (“have crucified”) and points rather to what believers have themselves done and must continue to do. The proper term to describe this act is repentance. Thus believers have already repented of their former way of life to the degree of actually having executed the old nature. This does not mean that the battle is thereby over, however. As in an actual crucifixion, life lingers even though the criminal has been nailed to the cross. Nevertheless, believers must regard the decisive act as having been done. They are not to seek to remove from the cross what has once been nailed there.

25 The second answer is Paul’s reminder that since believers have been made alive by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit. The Spirit leads; they must follow. Indeed, they are to get in line with him or keep in step with him.

26 It is hard to tell whether this verse belongs with the preceding section or with what follows. Certainly, it is the first of a number of specific actions that should characterize those who are being led by the Spirit. On the other hand, it is also a return to the theme of v.15 and, therefore, a summation. This verse probably refers to a situation Paul knew to be existing in Galatia and hence is a direct attempt to discourage pride and dampen party spirit. Walking by the Spirit is the ultimate solution to such evils.

D. Two Practical Exhortations (6:1–10)

1. Bearing one another’s burdens (6:1–5)

In the closing verses of ch. 5, Paul contrasted the works of the sinful nature and the fruit of the Spirit, concluding that Christians must live Spirit-led lives. But what does it mean to live a life characterized by love, joy, peace, patience, and the other virtues? To those who might prefer a mystical experience or a flight of fancy, it comes as a shock to find Paul returning at once to the most down-to-earth subjects—personal relationships (vv.1–5) and the use of money (vv.6–10)—and to find him measuring spirituality by action in these areas. Christians need to learn that it is in concrete situations, rather than in emotional highs, that the reality of the Holy Spirit in their lives is demonstrated.

1 The first situation is one that, more than any other, reveals the real character and spiritual maturity of a believer. Paul imagines a hypothetical situation—which is, however, not at all infrequent—in which one believer unexpectedly learns that another believer is trapped in some sin. What should one do? Does love mean that one should overlook the sin and refuse to face the facts? Or should one expose the sin openly and so gain a reputation for superior holiness? To Paul, a Spirit-led person should not proceed in either of these ways; he then goes on to describe the proper course of action.

First, Christians should restore the person who has fallen into sin. The verb used here is a medical term used for setting a fractured bone; what is wrong in the life of the fallen Christian must be set straight. It is not to be neglected or exposed openly.

Second, the work of restoration must be done by those who are “spiritual” (GK 4461). This word cuts two ways. It is obviously related to Paul’s use of it at the end of ch. 5, as if to say, “Do you consider yourself to be a spiritual instead of a carnal Christian? Well, then, here is a good test. Restoring an erring Christian is exactly the kind of thing that spiritual Christians do.” But Paul is also reminding his readers that only those who are genuinely led by the Spirit have the maturity to deal with sin in others. Every Christian should desire such maturity.

Third, the restoration should be made “gently” (cf. 5:22), being aware that no one is immune to temptation and that everyone can fall. Such an attitude avoids unkind gossip, prevents more serious backsliding, advances the good of the Church, and glorifies the name of Christ.

2 The second practical example of spirituality is the bearing of one another’s burdens. Paul refers to helping other Christians—sharing their load—whenever temptations oppress them or life depresses them. Here Paul deliberately returns to the thought of love being the fulfillment of the law, for the “law of Christ” is the new commandment (Jn 13:34) fulfilled in part by such actions. The burdens we do impose on ourselves should be the burdens of mutual sympathy.

3 Two errors might keep believers from fulfilling this role of mutual sympathy. The first is conceit, i.e., Christians thinking themselves to be more important than they are. The implication seems to be that if Christians neglect or refuse to bear another’s burdens, it is because they think themselves above it. But this is to be self-deceived, for, measured by God’s standards, no one amounts to anything. A positive statement of the same principle occurs in Ro 12:3.

4 The second error that might keep believers from bearing the burdens of another Christian is to be always comparing themselves and their own works with others. This can be harmful both in a positive sense (“I am doing better than they are”) and in a negative sense (“I am unable to do anything; everyone else is much better”). To counter both these forms of the error, Paul suggests that each believer has a task from the Lord and is responsible only to the Lord for doing it. To use others as a norm for one’s activities is a kind of escape. When Christians have their eyes on God rather than on other Christians, then in their own eyes they will at best be unprofitable servants (Lk 17:10) and God himself will receive glory (2Co 10:12–18).

5 In other words, the duty of each Christian is to carry his or her own load. There is no contradiction between this verse and v.2, for different words are used for what one is to bear. The word in v.2 (GK 983) means “heavy burdens”—those that are more than one person should carry. The word in this verse (GK 5845) denotes a person’s “pack.” Each Christian has his or her own work to do, so let each one take pride in how they do it.

2. The use of money (6:6–10)

The second area to which Paul seeks to apply the life of the Spirit in a practical way is the use of money; indeed, few things more clearly disclose the priorities of the heart than this. While many commentators hesitate to relate this entire section to the use of money, and while it is true that the section as a whole goes beyond that topic, at least three factors indicate that Paul was thinking primarily of money. First, the phrase “do good to all” (v.10) is certainly a euphemism for giving alms, so that a concern for financial matters never entirely leaves Paul’s mind. Second, v.7 is a proverb that Paul used on at least one other occasion to encourage generous giving (2Co 9:6). Finally, giving was important to Paul at this time, for the collection for the Jerusalem poor was part of his policy and the admonition to proceed with it was fresh in his mind as a result of the Jerusalem council (Gal 2:10). This passage may even be alluding to the collection.

Three uses of money are mentioned: (1) the support of the teacher in a Christian congregation, (2) the use of money to build up the life of the Spirit rather than to feed the flesh, and (3) the spending of money to help others, particularly Christians. The principle that ties all three points together is that enunciated in the proverb: reaping is in proportion to sowing.

6 The reference to the one “who receives instruction” probably does not imply a fully developed catechetical system, but it does point to a class of paid teachers at a surprisingly early date. Paul’s own policy was to preach the Gospel without receiving money, preferring to earn his living as a leatherworker. But this was in pioneer work. As soon as possible he seems to have established a more fixed structure. So here, as elsewhere (1Co 9:11, 14; 1Ti 5:17–18; cf. Lk 10:7), he asserts that a worker is worthy of his pay.

To support the Lord’s servants is not, however, a grim duty. Instead, Paul speaks of it as mutual sharing. As the teacher shares the good things of the word, so the congregation is to share all good things with the teacher (cf. Ro 15:27).

7 The special advice of v.6 is now enlarged to benevolence in general, and the principle that ties everything together is stated: “A man reaps what he sows.” This is an immutable law of God, which the phrase “God cannot be mocked” emphasizes. Consequently, though people may fool themselves (by sowing little but expecting much), they cannot fool God, and the results of their poor sowing will be manifest.

8 The principle of sowing and reaping is especially true of Christian living. Those who spend their money on what gratifies their fleshly nature will reap a fleshly harvest. And since the flesh is mortal and will one day pass away, the harvest will pass away also. On the other hand, those who use their money to promote spiritual causes and to feed their spiritual nature will have a bountiful harvest. While the primary application of this principle is to money, it also applies more broadly. For example, if congregations refuse to support ministers and so forfeit good teaching, preferring to spend their money on themselves, the results will be corruption. But if, on the other hand, they support good teachers, a spiritual harvest will result. The principle also applies to the use of time, the use of the mind, etc.

9 The great hindrance to good sowing is weariness that results in discouragement and eventually in giving up. Four months elapse between planting and harvest (Jn 4:35); and, while it is true that in spiritual sowing the results may occasionally come sooner, more often they take much longer. The best reason for resisting weariness and giving up is that if the necessary preparation is done, the harvest is certain.

One cannot help feeling that Paul may be talking to himself as he thinks of the extensive but thus far unrewarding efforts he had expended on the churches of Galatia. The change to the first person plural supports this supposition.

10 Finally, Paul speaks broadly about the obligation to do good to all people, returning again primarily to the thought of giving money. But suppose a Christian is limited in his resources? In that case, says Paul, he or she should give primarily to Christian causes, knowing that if they are not supported by Christians, they will not be supported at all. One with unlimited funds should give to every valid charity that comes along.

Two parts of this verse are of special interest. (1) Paul speaks of the “family of believers.” This really means those who have become related to us by believing in Christ and points to a relationship transcending all others. Giving should not be unduly restricted by denominational or party loyalty. (2) Paul mentions “opportunity” (GK 2789; also translated “time” in v.9). This word denotes “the proper time” for anything; consequently a time that occurs only once before it is lost forever. No one can hope to reap a harvest before the time appointed for it by God (v.9). But if one does not seize the time appointed for sowing, he or she will never reap a harvest.

3. Conclusion (6:11–18)

The apostle has said nearly everything he wishes to say, and the letter is drawing to a close. He now takes the pen from the hand of his writing secretary and adds a summary in his own handwriting. It contains a fresh warning against the legalizers, a restatement of the basic principle that Christianity is internal and supernatural rather than external and human (as the legalizers were trying to make it), a final reference to his own suffering for the cause of Christ, and a benediction. The somewhat abrupt ending has the effect of leaving the great issue of the letter—faith or works—sharply before the Galatians.

11 There can be little doubt that Paul took the pen in his own hand at this point and that he did so for at least two purposes: (1) to authenticate the letter, as he seems also to have done on other occasions (cf. 1Co 16:21; Col 4:18; 2Th 3:17), and (2) to emphasize his main points. There is less agreement about the meaning of the words “large letters,” though most now see this as referring to the size of his letters. But why write in large letters? It is generally assumed that Paul increased the size of his letters for emphasis, much as in contemporary printing a paragraph is italicized or set in boldface. Another possibility is that Paul’s large letters were due to poor eyesight (cf. 4:15; perhaps also his “thorn in the flesh” in 2Co 12:7).

12 For the last time Paul speaks of the legalizers, this time warning the Galatians about what they were attempting to do and why they were doing it. The object of their legalism is “to make a good impression outwardly.” The Greek for this phrase is richer than any single English translation can make it. For one thing, the verb translated “to make a good impression” carries overtones of insincerity; they were not what they seemed. The word “outwardly” is literally, “in flesh” (sarx; see comment on 5:16); it refers to people whom the legalizers wanted to impress, and to circumcision, which had become the touchstone of their religion. In contrast to this, Christianity consists in those who, as a result of his grace, have become new creatures (vv.14–15) desiring to please God.

But why did the legalizers persevere so strongly in their error if, indeed, as Paul claims, it is an error? There are two reasons. First, they desired to escape the persecution that is attached to Christ’s cross. The cross on which the Son of God died presents three disquieting and humiliating doctrines: (1) human beings are sinners; (2) their sin brings them under the curse of God, which Christ bore; and (3) nothing they can do can earn salvation, for if this were possible, the cross would have been unnecessary. These doctrines humble people. Consequently, they hate the cross and actively persecute those who proclaim it.

13 Second, the legalizers persevered in their error because they desired to boast that they had been able to win over the Galatians to Judaism. There were two things wrong with this. (1) It was an attempt to win others to that which was itself bankrupt; for not even those who were circumcised (i.e., Jews) were able to keep the law. (2) It was based on pride; the legalizers wanted to boast in the “flesh” of the Galatians (i.e., in the number of circumcisions). They were trophy hunters and wanted to be able to report on mass “conversions” in Galatia. The humbling parallel would be in the tendency to take pride in counting the number of “decisions for Christ” or “baptisms” today.

14 Over against all such improper and sinful boasting, Paul sets an entirely different boasting of his own—a boasting “in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So important is this cause of boasting that, says Paul, it is inconceivable that he could boast in anything else. It is striking how much of the Gospel is involved in this statement. The cross speaks of the atonement necessitated by human sin (see comment on v.12). The full name of the Savior speaks of the significance of his person and the role he played (lit., “God who saves, the Messiah”). Finally, the pronoun “our” speaks of the personal aspects of Christ’s redemption, for it becomes “ours” through the response of faith.

The legalizers had a motive for their actions. Well, so did Paul—only his motive was not that of a fear of persecution or of a desire to boast in statistics; rather, he boasted in the cross of Christ because of what the cross had accomplished in his life. As Paul looks back on his life he realizes that before his conversion he was exactly like the legalizers. Once he, too, was ruled by externals and gloried in human attainment (Php 3:3–6). But when he met Jesus, all this passed for him, so much so that he is able even to apply the bold image of crucifixion to it. The world with its selfish attitudes was crucified to him and he to the world. In its place came Christ alone—Christ, who is everything.

15 The summary is brief. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything as a means of salvation (cf. 5:6; 1Co 7:19). The only thing that counts is to be born again, to become a new creation. This comes about not by observing the law in any form but by receiving the truth of the Gospel.

16 Has anyone yet missed the point? If so, Paul will state it once again in even starker language—“Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God” (cf. the blessings of Pss 125:5; 128:6). This statement makes three points: (1) the peace and mercy of God are given only to those who adhere to this Gospel; (2) all who believe the Gospel have an obligation to continue walking in it; and (3) these, and these only, are the true Israel. “Rule” here clearly refers to the heart of the Gospel just enunciated, though it may also be applied to the “canon” of Scripture and to the whole of Christian doctrine. There can be no peace or mercy for the church when those responsible for following this “rule” depart from it.

17–18 Paul’s last words are a request and a benediction. The request is that henceforth he be not troubled with the kind of problem that had erupted in the Galatian churches. He does not want them to trouble him any longer by giving way to the legalistic heresies, for he has suffered enough already. It would be far better if the churches he founded at such cost would assume their own share of suffering, above all by resisting the kind of teaching that the legalizers upheld and therefore, if necessary, by enduring whatever persecution might follow.

The “marks [GK 5116] of Jesus” refer to the scars Paul bore on his body as the result of the persecutions he had endured for the sake of his Lord (cf. 2Co 6:2–6; 11:23–30). These marks revealed his relationship to Christ, just as the marks of a slave revealed his ownership. These genuine and honorable marks in the body contrast strikingly with the ritualistic mark of circumcision the legalizers wished to impose on the Galatians.

Paul ends the letter as he had begun it, upon the single and glorious note of God’s grace, expressing the wish that this grace might abide with the spirits of the Galatians. The church will always know great days when whatever external marks there might be (v.17) are not an effort to impress God ritualistically but are a natural result of true Christian service.

The Old Testament in the New

OT Text	NT Text	Subject
Gal 3:6	Ge 15:6	Faith of Abraham
Gal 3:8	Ge 12:3; 18:18	Gospel to Abraham
Gal 3:10	Dt 27:26	Curse of the law
Gal 3:11	Hab 2:4	The righteous live by faith
Gal 3:12	Lev 18:5	Living by the law
Gal 3:13	Dt 21:23	Curse of the cross
Gal 3:16	Ge 13:15; 24:7	Offspring of Abraham
Gal 4:27	Isa 54:1	Joy of the barren woman
Gal 4:30	Ge 21:10	Expulsion of Ishmael
Gal 5:14	Lev 19:18	Love your neighbor as yourself