Galatians is Paul’s earliest letter that he wrote just before the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50. Paul had just recently planted these churches in the South Galatians region, when to his surprise, false teachers entered these churches after he left in order to turn these new believers from grace to legalism. In Galatians, Paul argues for his apostolic authority and for grace over law.
Authorship
Paul claims to be the author of this letter (Gal. 1:1; 5:2), and hardly anyone contests this claim. Even the highly critical Tübingen School of F.C. Baur of the 19th century believed that this letter was genuine. Baur wrote that Galatians bears “so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the assertion of critical doubts in their case.”[1] Today, even “extreme critics agree that it was written by the apostle Paul,”[2] and it is the “best authenticated”[3] of Paul’s letters.
Date: When was Galatians written?
Since we adopt the South Galatian theory (see below), we can date this letter just before the Council of Jerusalem. Carson and Moo write, “If the council [of Jerusalem] is rightly dated A.D. 48, then this is the date of Galatians.”[4] Paul probably wrote Galatians in Acts 14:28. During this time, Paul was resting in between his first missionary journey and the forthcoming Council of the Jerusalem (Acts 15). He must have written this letter almost immediately after he planted the churches in the Galatian region, because he writes that the believers had so “quickly” deserted the gospel (Gal. 1:6).
Scholars claim that Paul was converted on the Damascus Road sometime between 1-3 years after Jesus’ resurrection. Presuming that we date Christ’s death to AD 33 (see Dating Jesus’ Death: April 3, AD 33), we can know that Paul’s letter was written at least fourteen years after his conversion. This would put us around AD 48 for his visit to Jerusalem.[5] This means that this letter could not be written earlier than AD 48, because he mentions this fourteen-year gap in his letter:
(Gal. 1:18) “Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.”
(Gal. 2:1) “Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.”
Most commentators do not believe that we should add the three years of Galatians 1:18 with the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1. Instead, both figures are dated from Paul’s conversion: Three years after his conversion he went to Jerusalem, and fourteen years after his conversion he went up again to Jerusalem.
Paul tells the Corinthians that he instructed the Galatians to give to the poor (1 Cor. 16:1). And yet, when we read Galatians, Paul doesn’t mention this to them, even though he does mention ministering to the poor in general (Gal. 2:10). This means that Paul likely spoke to the Galatians after this letter was written but before 1 Corinthians was written. Most scholars agree that 1 Corinthians was written sometime around AD 55.[6] Therefore, Paul must have written Galatians before this time. Thus, R. Alan Cole,[7] Ronald Fung,[8] and Timothy George[9] date the letter sometime around AD 48-49, right before the Council of Jerusalem. Consequently, many scholars believe that Galatians is arguably the earliest NT letter. If this is the case, then this is Paul’s first letter,[10] and maybe the earliest letter in the NT (though compare with the letter of James).
Table of Contents
Where was Paul writing? North or South Galatia?. 3
Audience: Studying Acts 13-14. 6
Audience: Studying Galatians. 7
How to use this commentary well 9
Galatians 1 (Evidence from Paul’s Life). 11
Galatians 2 (Evidence from the Jerusalem apostles). 19
Galatians 3 (Evidence from the OT Scriptures). 29
Galatians 4 (Sons not Slaves). 40
Galatians 5 (Walking by the Spirit). 49
Galatians 6 (Practical Application). 66
Where was Paul writing? North or South Galatia?
Over the last two centuries, scholars have debated whether Paul was writing to the region of North Galatia or South Galatia. While we hold to the South Galatian view, let’s consider both theories.
North Galatia?
Under this view, Paul wrote to the churches that he reached on his second missionary journey. These people were the ethnic Galatians (or “Gauls”), who occupied the territory of Asia Minor. According to this theory, Paul visited these cities (e.g. Ancyra, Tavium, Pessinus) in between his work in Pisidian Antioch and Troas (Acts 16:6). This view was held by almost all interpreters up until the 18th century, and it has been affirmed by J.B. Lightfoot,[11] James Moffat,[12] and James Montgomery Boice.[13]
South Galatia?
Under this view, Paul wrote to the churches he reached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14). These were not the ethnic Galatians, but rather, the people who inhabited the Roman province of Galatia. These would include those who lived in “Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, ‘Pisidian’ Antioch, and doubtless other small places whose names are unrecorded.”[14] This view was most powerfully defended by Sir William Ramsey[15] and F.F. Bruce.[16] Other NT scholars have also adopted this view, such as Ben Witherington,[17] Timothy George,[18] Ronald Fung,[19] R. Alan Cole,[20] D.A. Carson, and Douglas Moo.[21] Indeed, the majority of modern scholars affirm this theory. Several lines of evidence support this perspective:
First, Acts does not explicitly mention that Paul ever went to North Galatia. Even though Acts 16:6 and 18:23 might allude to Paul going to Northern Galatia, it doesn’t explicitly say that he did.[22] Luke could’ve mentioned these churches in North Galatia in a single sentence in Acts 16:6-7, and we might even expect him to mention a movement of this caliber. But he doesn’t. By contrast, the movement in Acts 13-14 seems to match what we read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.[23]
Second, Barnabas was on the first missionary journey—not the second. Paul mentions Barnabas three times in Galatians (Gal. 2:1, 9, 13), which implies that this people knew Barnabas well. Yet, Paul and Barnabas split up in Acts 15:39, because of their dispute over John Mark. Why would Paul mention Barnabas to the North Galatian churches, if Barnabas had never been there? Moreover, why would the North Galatians be surprised by Barnabas’ hypocrisy, if they had never met him? (Gal. 2:13)
Third, “Galatians” was a broad term. Paul didn’t have a term to describe all of the peoples in Antioch, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe. Therefore, calling this group the “Galatians” was the best term to include all of these people who were reached in Acts 13-14. Luke generally used ethnic names to describe the provinces of Galatia, while Paul apparently used proper names in describing them (2 Cor. 8:1; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:1).[24] The fact that Acts 18:23 says that Paul strengthened the disciples seems to imply that he had already been there (i.e. on his first missionary journey).
Fourth, we have no history of any churches in the North Galatian region. Even proponents of the Northern Galatian theory admit this key point.[25]
Fifth, if Paul went into North Galatia, it would have been a massive detour.[26] Paul would have needed to have gone northeast and then backtracked west to get to Troas, which would’ve been entirely out of his way.[27]
Sixth, in addition to this detour, Paul was sick when he made the trip. In order to get to North Galatia (from Pisidian Antioch; Acts 16:6), Paul would have needed to cross a thick mountainous terrain. This is unlikely because Paul said that he was sick when he came to Galatia (Gal. 4:13). This would have been a further deterrent, and far less likely.
Seventh, it’s difficult to believe that Judaizers would have followed Paul this far north. Not only is it unlikely that Paul would have travelled through this out-of-the-way territory, but it is also unlikely that the false teachers would have followed him through this. As Carson and Moo poignantly ask, “How fanatical were they?”[28]
Eighth, the persecution by Judaizers fits with the South Galatian theory nicely. On Paul’s first missionary journey (in South Galatia), Luke records, “The Jews incited the devout women of prominence and the leading men of the city, and instigated a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district” (Acts 13:50). Other Jewish religious leaders had Paul stoned on this first missionary journey (Acts 14:19). This would fit with Paul’s statement, “I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus” (Gal. 6:17).
North or South Galatia? |
|
North Galatia |
South Galatia |
|
During Paul’s second missionary journey |
During Paul’s first missionary journey |
| Refers to the ethnic Galatians:
The “Gauls” came from France, and they became the Gaul-atians. |
Refers to the Roman province of Galatia: This describes the Roman province of Galatia. |
|
Galatians is a later book |
Galatians is an early book |
| Galatians was written after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) |
Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) |
Audience: Studying Acts 13-14
Now that we know that Paul was writing to the South Galatian region, read Acts 13 and 14. Record your observations about what Barnabas and Paul encountered when they founded these churches on their first missionary journey.
Acts 13
First, the Jewish leaders allow Paul and Barnabas to speak in the synagogue (v.14-15). At this point in Christian history, the Jews were friendly to the open teaching of the gospel. Thus, Paul, a Jewish rabbi, was invited and even encouraged to speak.
Second, Paul recaps the story of Israel, and he presents Jesus as the final culmination of the story (v. 16-41). Paul gives the story of Jesus from the Old Testament Scriptures, and he portrays Christ as the culmination of this story. Paul saw the story as seamlessly being fulfilled in Jesus.
Third, the ‘God-fearing’ Gentiles were excited to hear that they were a part of the God’s plan in human history. This is what incited the Jewish contingent to become jealous and angry. Later in Romans 11, Paul writes that the salvation of the Gentiles would cause jealousy in the Jews, but this would hopefully draw them to faith in Jesus (Rom. 11:11, 14).
Fourth, Barnabas is the “encourager,” who gets Paul to speak. Barnabas’ name means “the son of encouragement.” Without an encourager like Barnabas, Paul might not have been the powerful speaker that he became.
Fifth, Paul is “sent” at Antioch. In Galatians 1:1, Paul says that he was not sent from men. In Acts 13:1-2, we read that it was the Spirit of God who publicly called him forward to serve. Paul got a private calling directly from Jesus in Acts 9; he got a public calling directly from the Holy Spirit in Acts 13.
Acts 14
First, the Jewish religious leaders chased Paul and Barnabas to the next city, because they were jealous of their influence. Paul understood this, because he himself had done this before he came to Christ (Acts 9).
Second, the Jewish people were jealous because the Gentiles were coming to faith. This also matches with Galatians, where we discover a controversy between the Jews and Gentiles. The Jews resisted Paul and Barnabas’ message (v.2).
Third, the Galatians were largely a Gentile church plagued by opposing religious teachers. We learn that this was a church that was filled with Greeks (v.1).
Conclusion
In the Acts 13, many Jewish people were upset that the God-fearing, uncircumcised Gentiles were able to come to faith. This, of course, is the major controversy in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. After Paul leaves the Galatian churches, the false teachers enter, and try to get the Gentile believers to become circumcised. Paul gets word of this false teaching, and he is furious! This is the setting of Galatians: A battle for grace!
Audience: Studying Galatians
A close reading of Acts 13-14 fits like a hand in a glove with Galatians. In this letter, we get a window into what was happening in these churches. Specifically, we discover Judaizers (i.e. a hybrid of Jewish-Christian teachers) who were infiltrating the church, and spreading false teaching about legalism through the church.
(Gal. 1:6-7) “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; there are some who are disturbing [tarassō] you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”
This passage teaches three things. First, the members of the church in Galatia were abandoning the gospel. Second, there were false teachers coming into the church, who were motivating the members to do this. Third, this had happened “quickly” after Paul left. The word for “disturbing” (tarassō) is the same term used of the false teachers coming from James’ church: “We have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed (tarassō) you with their words, unsettling your souls” (Acts 15:24). In both cases, these false teachers came from James’ church—even though he didn’t agree with them (Acts 15:24; Gal. 2:12).
(2:4 NIV) “This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.”
The NASB/NLT say that these false believers were brought into the church. These false believers must’ve been pretending to be believers, but in reality, they were spreading false doctrine.
(2:14) “When I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”
This is where we get the term “Judaizer.” Paul uses the verbal form of the word “Judaizer” in this verse (Greek Ioudaizein, “live like Jews”). Peter was falling prey to this temptation to “Judaize” Gentile converts.
(3:1) “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you…?”
The false teachers had entered into this church, deceiving the Christians. Absolute horror fills Paul’s words. He was just with them, and they were just recently liberated by the grace of God. But now? They have been “bewitched”! Paul wants them to realize that there are false teachers, and he wants them to learn discernment in being able to spot them.
(4:10 NLT) “You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.”
The false teachers were spreading Jewish formalism, trying to get these new believers to obey holy days.
(Gal. 5:2-3; 8) “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law… 8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.”
The false teachers were preaching circumcision for the purpose of sanctification. Paul says that these men were using “persuasion” to steer people away from the gospel. We can piece together their arguments by reading Paul’s letter.
While this Jewish formalism and legalism was clearly unbiblical, we need to sympathize with their thinking. Many of these traditions had been held as sacred for over 1,500 years![29] It must have been difficult for them to drop these overnight for God’s new and fulfilled work in the Cross. By appealing to tradition, these Judaizers must have been persuasive when arguing for formalism and legalism.
(6:12) Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
There was apparently a deep desire to conform to the established legal religion of Judaism. Since Christians were taking a radical divergence from Judaism in the new covenant, persecution quickly followed.
How to use this commentary well
For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.
Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy to read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”[30] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!
Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous discussion questions or questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.
Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.
As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”
Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”
Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!
In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!
At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.
Consulted Commentaries
Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).
This was our favorite commentary on Galatians. It’s a technical commentary, but it’s short (250 pages?). He also has a high view of our union with Christ and identity in Christ.
Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994).
George’s commentary is excellent, but far too long for a pastoral commentary (400+ pages). He had excellent insights, but these valuable insights could’ve been communicated in half of the word count. Even technical commentaries like Richard Longenecker’s were 150 pages shorter than George’s work. He also holds to a clear Calvinistic perspective throughout the commentary, which Reformed readers will appreciate. Even as a non-Calvinist, this was helpful to see another perspective on key passages.
R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989).
Cole has become one of our favorite commentators. This is a solid pastoral commentary.
James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976).
Commentary on Galatians
Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Galatians 1 (Evidence from Paul’s Life)
(1:1) “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead).”
Paul is already laying the foundation for his authority as an “apostle” (apostolos). In Classical Greek, the word was “used of a naval expedition… that is, to send off on a long and arduous mission.”[31] Paul was one of the original apostles who could write Scripture, and in his first letter (Galatians), he establishes his unique authority as an apostle. Here, he claims that he didn’t receive his authority from the other apostles or from any other human authority. He received it directly from “Jesus Christ and God the Father.” This will become important as the book unfolds, because the false teachers are questioning the legitimacy of Paul’s gospel, and supplanting it with their own. Paul repeatedly takes his stand on getting his gospel directly from the authority of Jesus—not humans.
Paul contrasts being sent “by men” with being sent “by Jesus.” This may be early evidence of a high Christology (i.e. Jesus being God). At the very least, we can infer that Jesus wasn’t merely a human being; otherwise, there would be no contrast between the two subjects.
Galatians is (arguably) our earliest epistle, and in the first line, Paul is already affirming that Jesus was “raised… from the dead.” The resurrection wasn’t a later legend of the early church. Paul assumes the truth of the resurrection, seeing no reason to defend it to his audience.
(1:2) “And all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia.”
The previous verse made it sound like it was “Paul against the world.” But consider this verse: Paul enjoyed fellowship and working with other people, rather than working alone (“all the brethren who are with me”).
(1:3) “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The gospel message, which Paul will defend extensively in this book, is the way to have “grace” and “peace” with God. This is why Paul is such a passionate defender of the gospel. Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness is the ultimate cure to the human condition—namely, alienation from God.
(1:4) “[Jesus] gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.”
The “present evil age” (aiōn) in this context refers to false teaching and legalism in the Church. In this context, this term has “the same force as ‘world’ (kosmos) often has in the writings of John (e.g., 1 Jn. 2:15-17).”[32] Indeed, at the end of the letter, Paul will write that “the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (kosmos)” (Gal. 6:14).
“According to the will of our God and Father.” There is no separation between the love of the Son and the love of the Father. Both the Father and the Son worked together send Jesus to pay for our sins: “God loves us not because Jesus died for us; rather Jesus died for us because of the Father’s eternal and unconquerable love for us.”[33]
(1:5) “To whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.”
Under legalism, humans give themselves the “glory.” Under grace, God gets the “glory.”
(Gal. 1:1-5) Why doesn’t Paul pray in his introduction?
Paul’s Thesis Statement: There is only ONE gospel
Now that Paul has established his claim of apostolic authority, he next asserts that there is only one gospel. The false teachers were teaching something different than the truth of Christ, and the two are incongruent with one another.
(1:6) “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel.”
It would have been easy for Paul to make this a horizontal and personal issue between him and this church. Instead, he makes this a vertical and theological issue between them and Christ. Since the gospel is wrapped up in Christ’s work, deserting the gospel is deserting Jesus himself. The term “desert” (metatithesthe) means “to have a change of mind in allegiance” (BDAG). It is used of one of the torture victims during the Maccabean Revolt who refused to “turn away” from Judaism and embrace the Paganism of Antiochus (2 Macc. 7:24). The term was used “metaphorically to one who had changed allegiance from one country to another, a political traitor, or one who had switched sides in an armed conflict, a military deserter. Paul claimed the Galatians were spiritual turncoats!”[34] Here, the Galatians were “turning away” or “deserting” the One who called them “by grace.” They were committing treason against God himself.
Paul uses the present tense, which means that the Galatians were in the process of deserting Christ. The story wasn’t over, and Paul expressed confidence that they would return to Christ (Gal. 5:10; 6:9). Paul was writing to get them back on track.
“I am amazed.” Apparently, legalism can enter into the church “quickly.” This was so shocking that Paul can’t help from sharing his amazement. This explains why Paul has a harsh “tone” in the opening of this letter (Gal. 4:20).
(1:7) “[This different gospel] is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”
“[This different gospel] is really not another.” There aren’t different levels of good news from religion. It’s either the gospel (thesis) or no gospel (antithesis). The gospel is not like the difference between aspirin and ibuprofen; it’s the difference between antibiotics and arsenic. Paul was no relativist!
“Only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” False teachers crept into this church quickly after Paul had left it, and they were distorting the gospel message. Like dripping a single drop of poison into a clean glass of water, legalism spoils the message of grace. After all, what is “good news” about having to live a scrupulous moral life under the constant fear of judgment?
Paul draws a significant connection between distorting the gospel and disturbing the people. Stott writes, “These two go together. To tamper with the gospel is always to trouble the church. You cannot touch the gospel and leave the church untouched, because the church is created and lives by the gospel. Indeed the church’s greatest troublemakers (now as then) are not those outside who oppose, ridicule and persecute it, but those inside who try to change the gospel.”[35]
“Distort the gospel” (metastrephō) can be translated “pervert” (NIV) or “deliberately twist” (NLT). George defines it as meaning “to reverse, to change to the opposite, to twist into something different.”[36] They were putting the “cart before the horse” by reversing grace and law.
It must have been difficult to plant this church and quickly leave it. We wonder if Paul was reticent to leave one of his first church plants (Acts 13-14), worrying that they might fall away after he was gone. It turns out that this nightmare became a reality.
(1:8-9) “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”
Paul places the authority of the gospel over angels and over the apostolic band. He even repeats himself for emphasis. It’s as if Paul was writing, “Did I stutter?!”
“Accursed” (anathema) conveys “the same idea as the Hebrew ḥērem, that of being ‘under the curse,’ ‘under the wrath of God.’”[37] It refers to “nothing less than to suffer the eternal retribution and judgment of God.”[38] In other words, Paul is calling down divine judgment for anyone who distorts the gospel message.
“We have said before…” This implies that Paul repeated this teaching. Perhaps he foresaw conflict arising in this church. After all, in Acts 13-14, Paul and Barnabas faced many different legalistic teachers who were openly fighting the message of grace.
(1:10) “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.”
The idea of trying to “please” (areskō) means to “to act in a fawning manner, win favor, please, flatter” or to “accommodate” (BDAG, p.129). Paul was willing to compromise on many issues to win people to Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-23), but he was unwilling to budge on the gospel message. Paul’s words and “tone” (cf. Gal. 4:20) were likely offensive, but he had decided that he would speak the truth in love, rather than placate false teachers. In the words of Os Guinness, Paul was living for “the audience of One.” (cf. Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22). One day, in the future, we will stand before God and either see our lives’ work burned up (1 Cor. 3:10-15) or we will hear the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant! …Come and share your master’s happiness!” (Mt. 25:21 NIV). Paul had his eyes fixed on this day.
(1:11-12) “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
“I neither received it from man.” This harkens back to verse 1 where Paul denied that his apostleship came “from men or through the agency of man.” Instead, Paul uses technical, rabbinical language that was used by Pharisees to describe transmitting sacred tradition (paralambanō or Hebrew qibbēl, 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3). See comments on 1 Corinthians 15:3.
Only, in this case, Paul makes the audacious claim that his message came directly from Jesus himself. But how does Paul substantiate this extraordinary claim? How do we know that Paul is a teacher of the truth, while the false teachers are in the wrong? Paul gives several arguments to support this assertion.
Argument #1: Paul’s radical change of life
In the rest of chapter 1, we possess the “longest and richest autobiographical material we have from the pen of Paul.”[39] Though, Paul is not just sharing parts of his testimony for edification. Rather, he has “selectively recounted certain incidents in order to make a theological point.”[40] Paul had previously been a hostile, violent persecutor of the church. What could possibly have caused such a radical change in his life? Paul points out that the best explanation for this is that he had a true encounter with Jesus, as he mentioned in verse 12 above.
(1:13) “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.”
Paul gives his own testimony as evidence of the fact that verse 12 is true. He is raising an important question: Why would Paul stop persecuting Christians unless a cataclysmic change occurred in his life (such as Jesus appearing to him)? The Judaizers were claiming to be authentically Jewish and grounded their argument in their ethnicity. Paul argues that he has them beat: Not only was his entire “manner of life in Judaism,” but he was also a “persecutor” of Christians.
(Gal. 1:13) Did Paul’s personality change after his conversion?
(1:14) “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.”
Paul just finished writing that he was persecuting and killing Christians. In the same breath, he states that he was “advancing in Judaism” beyond his colleagues. In this case, his religious zeal was “not in accordance with knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). Paul was psychologically sincere that killing Christians was right, but he was sincerely wrong. This confronts us with the notion that not all religion is necessarily good. In Paul’s case, his religious zeal led him to murder others.
Where did Paul get the idea to use violence against Christians? At this point in his life, Paul likely viewed his “zeal” as being in line with the great heroes of the Jewish faith: Phineas killed a fornicating Israelite because of his great zeal (Num. 25:6-7); Joshua killed Achan for breaking God’s commands to plunder the Canaanite cities (Josh. 7:24-26); Elijah slew 450 prophets of Baal who were perverting the nation in his day (1 Kin. 18:19, 40). Likely, Paul saw himself as “standing in the tradition of these zealous leaders in his campaign of violence against the Christians who to his mind were contravening the purpose of God by subverting his holy law.”[41]
The Judaizers probably argued that their message had its foundations in the Jewish traditions. Yet again, Paul has them beat: He was at the top of his class when it came to the “ancestral traditions” of Judaism. He not only had incredible zeal and an incredible mind, but he also was incredibly religious—far more than his opponents.
(1:15-16) “But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood.”
It would be very, very odd for a zealous Jewish rabbi to start preaching among Gentiles—given the hostility between the two groups in the first century. What could account for this? One word: “God.” Once God spoke to Paul in such a palpable way, he didn’t need to go back to Jerusalem to hear a higher authority on the subject. Hence, Paul didn’t “consult with flesh and blood.”
Argument #2: Peter and James agreed with Paul’s gospel
In our view, Paul is not appealing to Peter and James as authorities over him. Paul has already pointed out that the gospel message itself has authority over angels, teachers, and even the apostles (“even if we… preach to you… he is to be accursed” Gal. 1:8-9). The gospel message is bigger than the apostles themselves. Instead of appealing to Peter and James as his authority, Paul is debunking the Judaizers’ claim that his gospel contradicted the gospel in the church in Jerusalem. In other words, Paul is falsifying the claim of the “men from James” (Gal. 2:12) who claimed to have authority from the Jerusalem apostles.
(1:17) “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.”
The Judaizers were probably arguing that they got their authority from Jerusalem (from James?). But Paul writes that during this time he went away from Jerusalem. He went to Arabia which is in the vicinity of Damascus.[42] Paul was “never dependent on the Jerusalem authorities for his gospel or his commission to preach it.”[43]
What was Paul doing for these three years? We reject the view that Paul was going to pray, meditate, and seek God on Mount Sinai. At this point in history, “Arabia” referred to the “Nabatean Kingdom, a vast expanse of territory stretching southward from Damascus toward the Arabian Peninsula.”[44] Instead, Paul went up to “Arabia” to teach the gospel (cf. Acts 9:20), and is why he faced persecution from Aretas IV (9 BC to AD 40; 2 Cor. 11:32-33).
(1:18) “Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.”
If Paul had in any way doubted that his gospel was authentic, then why would he wait three years to go to Jerusalem? Paul viewed his experience of the risen Jesus to be just as authentic as the other apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 15:8ff).
“Become acquainted with” (historesai) means “to investigate,” “to enquire,” and “to investigate.”[45] This word was used for “history” by the time of Aristotle (Poet., 9, p. 1451b, 3) and Herodotus (History, 2.99.1).[46] In other words, Paul was on a historical investigation when he came to Jerusalem.
While there is some doubt as to whether this classical definition should be applied to Paul’s usage,[47] we have to consider the context: After all, Paul surely didn’t travel all the way to Jerusalem to “shoot the breeze” for two weeks. No doubt, Paul was badgering Peter with questions about Jesus’ earthly ministry, historically investigating the earthly life of Jesus. Since Paul didn’t have the privilege of knowing Jesus before his ascension, he wanted to confer with Jesus’ disciples who had all of this historical data.[48] Fung writes, “Peter must have been an invaluable source of information concerning Jesus’ life and ministry… The two apostles can hardly have avoided talking about the earthly life and ministry of their common Lord.”[49] Fung also aptly notes that the only two names mentioned here (Peter and James) are also listed in Paul’s list of the eye witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:1-7). Thus, Paul wanted to interview the eyewitnesses of the resurrection (Gal. 1:1).
(1:19) “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.”
Paul only met with Peter and James at this time. James had been a skeptic of his brother (Mk. 3:21; Jn. 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to him after his resurrection, and this changed his life forever. Later in the book, Paul will point out that these Judaizers came “from James.” Here Paul points out that he himself came “from James,” so to speak, and James agreed with Paul’s gospel—not theirs! This would make the Judaizers shiver in their seats, because Paul was debunking their authority.
(1:20) “(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)”
Again, we see the main reason for Paul giving his testimony: He is trying to demonstrate the truth of his gospel and why he should be believed.
Argument #3: The believers in Cilicia, Syria, and Judea can confirm Paul’s testimony
(1:21-24) “Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, ‘He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.’ 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.”
Paul didn’t stop in Jerusalem. He went and visited all the believers in Syria and Cilicia (v.21), and word spread to all the churches in Judea (v.22). All of these believers confirmed Paul’s testimony and his changed life (see Argument #1 above). This would really make the Judaizers panic: Paul’s testimony could be confirmed by the very same people he formerly persecuted (v.23). In fact, these same believers were praising God for Paul!
Acts records that the Jerusalem believers were afraid when they first met Paul after he came to Christ. After all, Paul had been a violent murderer (Acts 9:26). It took Barnabas to vouch for Paul’s authenticity in order to assuage their fears (Acts 9:27). In our view, all of these events align quite well with Luke’s compressed account in Acts 9:21-29.
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verses 6-10. What led Paul to write this letter to the Galatians?
(2) How would you define the gospel? How do you know that you have the right definition of what the gospel is?
(3) Read verse 10. Paul seems to be very inflexible when it comes to pleasing people. How does this fit with other passages that describe Paul? (e.g. 2 Cor. 5:11; 1 Cor. 9:20-23; 10:33; Acts 16:3)
(4) Read chapter 1. What reasons does Paul give for why we should trust him, rather than the Judaizers?
- Paul opens this chapter trying to convince his readers that they have been defrauded into believing a “different gospel” (v.6). His case is this:
- We shouldn’t trust the authority of humans—only Christ (vv.8-9).
- Paul received his gospel directly from Christ (vv.11-12).
- He gives evidence for this claim by appealing to his own personal testimony. He notes that he had been a persecutor of the church—not an apostle. But his life entirely changed after meeting the risen Christ (vv.13-17). He notes that he didn’t need to go compare his gospel with the other apostles, because he was so certain his was correct.
- He notes that he did meet the apostles, but this wasn’t the basis of his authority.
- Finally, all of the churches could be called to the stand to support his testimony.
With evidence like this, why wouldn’t the churches in Galatia respect Paul’s authority? Paul is arguing that these false believers (v.7) couldn’t stand up to his credentials and evidence for the veracity of his gospel.
(5) People in our culture generally claim that objective truth does not exist when it comes to spirituality. How does this perspective fit with Paul’s claims throughout Galatians 1?
Apart from the biblical view, what problems do you see with relativism? Should thinking people adopt this view?
What do you believe is at stake in holding to objective truth versus relativizing it?
(6) Paul seems to be pretty angry in this section, even having a harsh “tone” (Gal. 4:20). When do you think it’s appropriate to get angry as a believer? When is it wrong to get angry? Consider Ephesians 4:26 (“Be angry, and yet do not sin”) or John 2 where Jesus clears the temple.
(7) Is it possible to be passionate for the truth without being self-righteous or condescending? What insights do we see from Paul’s example in Galatians 1?
Galatians 2 (Evidence from the Jerusalem apostles)
Paul has been arguing against the Judaizers, who were claiming that Gentiles must be circumcised in addition to believing the gospel. Paul has been marshalling arguments against their view. Now, he raises another line of evidence: The other apostles in Jerusalem agreed with his gospel—not theirs.
Argument #4: The apostles in Jerusalem agreed with Paul’s gospel
While Paul didn’t gain his authority from the Jerusalem apostles, he knows that the false teachers were claiming this authority. Thus, Paul argues that he had been to Jerusalem, met with the apostles, and these men agreed with him—not the Judaizers. As Cole writes, “Paul’s relations with the Jerusalem church were also an open book which all might read.”[50]
(Gal. 2:1) What did Paul do in the 14 year period before his second journey?
(2:1) “Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.”
Paul took a second trip to Jerusalem. The fourteen-year interval is marked from Paul’s conversion—not added to the three years mentioned earlier (Gal. 1:18). It was “rhetorically more emphatic”[51] for Paul to start both chronological markers from his conversion, rather than writing, “Then, eleven years after my first visit…”
Given the AD 33 date for the death of Jesus, this would place this visit in roughly AD 48. However, we should note that the biblical authors used an “inclusive method of reckoning periods of time.”[52] Thus, Jesus was dead for “three days,” even though he was only in the tomb for 36 hours. Similarly, Paul could be counting the end of a year and the beginning of a year in his reckoning, bringing us closer to a timespan of 13 or even closer to 12 years (making the date AD 46 or AD 47?).
This time, Paul brought two of his friends along: Barnabas and Titus with him (Acts 11:28-30).
Who was Barnabas?
Barnabas was an influential leader in the early church. He was a Jewish believer in Jesus, and he was the first man to vouch for Paul’s authentic conversion. He seems to be a man who really believed in people: Paul (Acts 9:27), his cousin Mark (Acts 15:37-39), and surely man others. This could be why he carried the nickname “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36-37). Acts records that Barnabas “was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,” and through him “considerable numbers were brought to the Lord” (Acts 11:24). He was considered an apostle alongside of Paul (1 Cor. 9:3-6; Acts 14:4, 14).
Who was Titus?
Titus was another influential leader in the early church. He was a Gentile believer in Jesus, and a close coworker alongside Paul. While the book of Acts never mentions Titus, the epistles mention him frequently. Titus had worked in the church of Corinth (2 Cor. 8:23), and he comforted Paul during a time of deep depression (2 Cor. 7:6). He seems to be a very selfless and honest leader (2 Cor. 12:17-18), who later in life planted churches in Crete (Titus 1:4-5) and Dalmatia (2 Tim. 4:10).
(2:2) “It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.”
“It was because of a revelation that I went up.” Paul went up to Jerusalem because of Agabus’ revelation that the city of Jerusalem would be in severe famine and poverty (Acts 11:28-30). This makes sense of Paul’s statement that he wanted to care for the poor (Gal. 2:10).
“And I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation.” Paul didn’t go up to Jerusalem to check to see if he had the true gospel. He went up to see if the other apostles had the true gospel. Fung writes, “There was already no question of Paul’s seeking the apostles’ authorization for his mission or message.[53] Paul is leveraging this account to show that the “Galatians [are the ones] who have moved ground, not Paul.”[54] Paul was preaching the same gospel that he always had.
“For fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.” Most likely, Paul was worried for the many people he had reached for Christ. If the Jerusalem church disagreed with his gospel message, this would place these newly formed churches in danger. George explains, “[This was] an expression of concern for the new believers he had led to Christ and the young churches he had founded. What would a major division in the church mean for these Christians? Beyond that, what would it mean for the furtherance of Paul’s missionary work? Doubtless he himself would not be deterred from the path he had been traveling for more than a dozen years. Yet the world mission to which he had been divinely called could well be sidetracked, if not finally thwarted, by his failure to reach a base agreement on a shared gospel with the mother-church in Jerusalem.”[55]
This cannot be the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), because Paul spoke to these men “in private,” while the Council of Jerusalem was public. Moreover, Paul doesn’t mention a public encounter, which implies that this was the only setting in which he engaged the apostles.[56] Again, this must refer to the visit in Acts 11.
(Gal. 2:2, 6, 9) Why does Paul write that these men were of reputation? Is he being condescending?
(2:3) “But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”
There was a faction of Judaizers who were claiming that circumcision was a salvation issue. Within just a few years, a cabal of Judaizers were coming out of Judea teaching, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The gospel message was being threatened by Law.
This is why Paul brought Titus Jerusalem to see if the other apostles would accept him as he was, or if they would compel him to be circumcised—thereby adding Law. Paul brought Titus in person, no doubt, because it’s easier to debate theological issues abstractly, but far more difficult to debate the issue when an uncircumcised man is standing right there in the room! Yet, to Paul’s encouragement (and Titus’ relief!) the Jerusalem apostles didn’t enforce circumcision for the sake of salvation. This was a direct affirmation of Paul’s gospel, and a direct affront to the message of the Judaizers.
(2:4) “But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.”
The Jerusalem apostles agreed with Paul’s gospel, and refused to circumcise a Gentile like Titus. Who then was bringing in this message of legalism? Paul states that “false brethren” were responsible.
“Spy out” (kataskopēsai) is similar to the term “oversee” (episkopēsai) that is often used for pastors and leaders. This could imply that they were trying to “claim… the right of supervision.”[57] Paul might be “making a deliberate contrast between the proper oversight of a godly pastor and the arrogant usurpation of ecclesiastical power the false brothers had assumed for themselves.”[58]
The passive voice implies that someone brought these false teachers into the church. But who? It certainly wasn’t James (Acts 15:24), nor Peter (Acts 15:7-11). Cole writes, “It was possibly not any one great apostolic figure, but simply the group of Jerusalem Christians who had formerly belonged to the Pharisaic party (Acts 15:5) or perhaps the large bloc of ex-priests (Acts 6:7), those ‘zealous for the law’ (Acts 21:20).”[59] Regardless, the Judaizers were actively trying to work their way into the fellowship (“sneaked in to spy out our liberty”). This happened in Jerusalem, and now, history was repeating itself in Galatia. False teachers were again trying to kill the liberty of the believers.
(2:5) “But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.”
Paul had encountered Judaizers before, but he didn’t give in to their religious demands or pressures. He fought for grace for the benefit of other believers (“so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you”).
(2:6-9) “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
In the heart of Jerusalem, none of the apostles conceded to law teaching. Instead, they all agreed that Titus could go uncircumcised, and added nothing to the gospel message that Paul presented (“contributed nothing to me”). To repeat: When Paul explained his gospel, the other apostles “contributed nothing” to it and “gave [him] the right hand of fellowship” (v.6, 9). This would make the false teachers in Galatia squirm in their seats, because Paul is claiming that all of the leading apostles agreed with his message of free grace.
The “men of reputation” could refer to the other, non-apostolic Christian leaders in Jerusalem. Or it could refer to the apostles listed in context (e.g. James, Peter, and John; see v.9). Paul has already told us that he didn’t need to verify his gospel with the other apostles, because he received it directly from Christ (1:12). But he went the extra mile to show his audience that the other apostles agreed with him—not the Judaizers.
“God shows no partiality.” This is an idiom that can literally be rendered, “God does not accept the face of a man.” That is, God does not “evaluate that person on the basis of some outward appearance or external circumstance.”[60]
(2:10) “They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”
This passage lines up with the Jerusalem visit of Acts 11:28, because Agabus gave a prophecy “by the Spirit” (i.e. “revelation,” Gal. 2:2) about the “great famine” (i.e. “remember the poor,” Gal. 2:10).
Argument #5: Even Peter was corrected by the gospel message.
Paul began with a central thesis: He received his gospel message directly from Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). He supports this claim by arguing that (1) it radically changed him from a persecutor into a preacher, (2) Peter and James agreed with his gospel, (3) the churches of Cilicia, Syria, and Judea accepted him and his gospel, and finally (4) the main pillars of the Jerusalem church agreed with his gospel.
At this point, the Judaizers would really be shaking in their boots! Paul has all of the big guns defending grace. Now, he takes his argument a step further: The gospel even has authority over the apostles themselves. Remember, Paul originally wrote, “Even if we [i.e. the apostles]… should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Gal. 1:8). The truth of the gospel has a transcendent authority—even over the apostles themselves. To demonstrate this, Paul gives an example of how the great apostle Peter needed correction with the gospel message.
(2:11) “But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
“When Cephas came to Antioch.” Going on the assumption that this is chronologically after the events of vv.1-10, this would fit well with Paul’s stay in Antioch at the end of his first missionary tour (Acts 14:26-28). Paul spent a “long time with the disciples” during this time (Acts 14:28), which would allow for a visit from Peter. During this time, Antioch was “the third largest city in the Roman Empire and boasted a population of more than half a million.”[61]
The apostles were human like us. They weren’t perfect! Even after coming to Christ, Peter continued to fail like the rest of us. Paul “opposed” him (or “stood up to him” antestēn). Peter was “condemned” (kategnōsmenos), which can be rendered “in the wrong” (NIV) or “convicted” (BDAG).
(2:12) “For prior to the coming of certain men from James, [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.”
“For prior to the coming of certain men from James.” These “men from James” were not sent by James. In fact, elsewhere James explicitly denies being responsible for these men: “We have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words” (Acts 15:24). These men were around James, but they did not follow James’ teaching. If someone came to Bible teachings at your church and then went out to teach heresy, would you be responsible for this? Of course not. Neither was James.
“[Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles.” In the ancient world, table fellowship meant a lot more than simply “grabbing lunch.” In this era, table fellowship meant that you approved of the other person’s lifestyle (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11). Carson and Beale write, “Table fellowship in ancient Israel was reserved for intimate friends and usually implied an endorsement of the practices of those with whom one associated.”[62] Historian Joachim Jeremias writes, “In Judaism table-fellowship means fellowship before God, for the eating of a piece of broken bread by everyone who shares in the meal brings out the fact that they all have a share in the blessing which the master of the house has spoken over the unbroken bread.”[63] This is why the religious leaders were astounded at the fact that Jesus would eat with sinners (Lk. 15:2).
Does this refer to eating the Lord’s Supper together? Fung[64] holds that this could include the Lord’s Supper, but it doesn’t explicitly refer to it. The best evidence for the Lord’s Supper even being in view is the fact that the early Christians would often eat their meals together and take the Lord’s Supper at the same time (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:20-22, 33ff). Moreover, this would explain why Paul states that Peter was not being straightforward about “the truth of the gospel” (v.14). At the same time, the focus is on simply eating together, which would’ve been scandalous enough. After all, a Jewish man like Peter would’ve been eating non-kosher food, and these Gentiles weren’t being forced to eat kosher food either.
“But when they came [i.e. the Judaizers], [Peter] began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” Normally, Peter would eat with the Gentile believers, but the circumcision party pressured him out of this. This would be similar to a white, Mississippi pastor in the 1950’s spending time with black Christians. If he stopped spending time with them, just think what this would communicate about God!
It was “fear” and man-pleasing that led Peter to change his views (Gal. 1:10). Peter fell prey to man-pleasing when he denied Christ, and when he hesitated to eat with Cornelius the Gentile (Acts 10-11). Here, he is still falling prey to the sin of man-pleasing once again.
God had called “Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:8). This means that Peter would’ve faced considerable social pressure from his Jewish-Christian friends. When ultra-conservative Judaizers entered into the equation, they must’ve really pushed Peter to drawback. Imagine the pressure you would feel if you were Peter. You are only a simple fisherman, and you were never educated in the prestigious rabbinical schools (Acts 4:13). Now, a whole host of ex-Pharisees (Acts 15:5) and Jewish ex-priests (Acts 6:7) have come to faith in Jesus, and they are challenging your views. It would be easy to capitulate and cower to their great religiosity and scholarship.
Peter is still in the wrong. He “stood condemned” (v.11) because of his “hypocrisy” (v.13). This social pressure changes nothing about the immoral decision that Peter made in withdrawing from the Gentile-Christians. But we should understand this context to humanize him as a historical figure. When we understand his setting, we can better relate to his fears and faults.
(2:13) “The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”
Legalism and hypocrisy have far-reaching effects. It affected the entire Jewish church. Paul’s language shows outrage: “Even Barnabas!” The two words show Paul’s heart. If these legalists could get Barnabas to capitulate, then who couldn’t they get? This truly “indicates both the strong influence exerted by the legalistic Jewish Christians and the loneliness of Paul’s resistance to their demands.”[65]
(2:14) “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”
This issue of table fellowship was not a peripheral issue, but a central one. Paul considers it “not [being] straightforward about the truth of the gospel.” This same phrase (“the truth of the gospel”) was used with reference to the Judaizers in verse 5. Peter’s actions communicated heresy about the nature of the Christian message—that there is “neither Jew nor Greek” in Christ (Gal. 3:28). By not eating with the Gentiles, Peter was subtly saying that these Gentile Christians should adopt the Jewish food laws.[66]
While Paul met privately with the apostles before (Gal. 2:2), here he rebukes Peter “publicly.” Since Peter’s actions had public ramifications, Peter needed to be publicly rebuked.
(2:15) “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles.”
Paul is using sarcasm to refer to “Gentile sinners” (NIV). Paul is not being condescending toward the Gentiles. In fact, just the opposite. Later, he calls himself a sinner (v.17).
By not eating with the Gentiles, Peter made it seem like they weren’t true believers, or perhaps “second-class citizens.” Peter and the Judaizers “were acting as if their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters were still sinners while they, because of their ritual purity and obedience of the law, stood in a different, more favorable relationship to God.”[67]
Why doesn’t Paul give us Peter’s reaction to all of this? In our opinion, Paul didn’t have resolution on this at this point. If we’re right that this letter precedes the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, then Peter hadn’t openly side with Paul—at least not yet (Acts 15:7-11). After the Jerusalem Council, we see that Peter accepted Paul’s rebuke and the two were united.[68]
(2:16) “Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
Could Paul make the concept of grace any clearer? (citing Ps. 143:2; cf. v.11) Paul uses this dichotomy of faith versus law three different ways! He moves from a (1) negative statement about the Law’s inability to justify to a (2) positive statement about how faith is the instrument of our justification to (3) another universal negative statement about “no flesh” being justified by the Law.
Do the “works of the law” refer only to ceremonial laws and Jewish religious identity? This view (defended by Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright) is the so-called “New Perspective on Paul.” It holds that the key issue of justification is not theological, but sociological. The major sin is separating Jewish Christians from Gentile Christians, and the “works of the law” are restricted to aspects like circumcision and kosher laws. Despite our concern that devotees of N.T. Wright might need therapy from our thoughts on this subject, we must say clearly: N.T. Wright is wrong. According to this letter, the “works of the law” include circumcision and dietary restrictions, but Paul expands this to include all aspects of the OT law. Later, Paul writes, “As many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them” (Gal. 3:10). Again, he writes, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3). Paul sees these ceremonial laws as being out of line with “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5, 14). If we can logically accept circumcision as necessary, then what will we be unwilling to accept as additions to the gospel message? Paul is surely writing against more than mere sociological strife between Jews and Gentiles. He has theological justification in mind as well.
Answering Objections to Justification by Faith
(2:17) “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!”
Perhaps we’re seeing a glimpse into the arguments used to pressure Peter in Antioch.[69] By eating with Gentiles, the Judaizers might have been accusing Peter of encouraging sin by breaking the kosher laws.
Paul’s rebuttal? Both Jews and Gentiles need the Savior—not just Gentiles. Moreover, the kosher laws do not justify anyone—neither Jews nor Gentiles. Does Christ accept sinful law breakers? Yes, of course. But does this mean that Christ promotes sinful law breaking? Not at all!
(2:18) “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.”
Some commentators think that Paul is referring to rebuilding the “wall of partition” between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14).[70] This fits with the earlier ethnic rejection of Gentiles, but it doesn’t fit the immediate context that deals with themes related to justification (e.g. “sinners,” “sin,” “transgressor,” “justified,” etc.). Paul is referring to the Law in general, and if we reintroduce Law after coming to Christ by grace, then we only prove our need for grace all the more. If we go back under the law (“rebuild what I have once destroyed”), then it only convicts us further. George writes, “To go back on this fundamental commitment would be, in effect, to build back the old structures of repression and slavery, structures that have been once and for all shattered by Christ’s death on the cross and the pouring out of his Spirit upon his people. To yield on this point would be like trying to put the plan of salvation into reverse!”[71]
(2:19) “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.”
The Law brought death. To be clear, the Law didn’t die, but rather, we died. Out of this death, we are now a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Our new power for a sanctified life is not through the Law. Paul uses the present tense, showing that he is referring to sanctification—not justification here (“so that I might live to God”).
(2:20) “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”
“I have been crucified with Christ.” This doesn’t refer to a subjective state of mind. Rather, this refers to “the believer’s objective position in Christ.”[72] Earlier, Paul wrote that our position was the key to being justified. That is, we are “justified in Christ” (v.17).
“Christ lives in me.” Christ lives in us! To go back under law would be to deny this life-changing reality, trading the inner power of the Holy Spirit with a list or rules and regulations. This connects our death to Adam with our new identity in Jesus. For a fuller exposition on this topic, see Paul’s teaching in Romans 5:12-8:17 (see “Introduction to Romans”).
(2:21) “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
Why did Christ die if we were going to go back under the law once again? The Judaizers had a low view of Christ’s finished work, which effectively “nullified” the grace of God. The word “nullify” (atheteō) means “to reject something as invalid” or to “ignore” or to “reject” (BDAG). Adding works to grace results in rejecting the grace of God.
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verses 11-16. What does this tell us about great leaders like Peter? What does this tell us about great leaders like Paul?
(2) Peter could have easily fallen into defensive pride in Acts 15. After all, Paul had just publicly rebuked him in Galatians 2—perhaps only months earlier! Who is the greater hero of faith in this section? Paul who had the courage to correct Peter’s error? Or Peter for showing humility in accepting his rebuke and agreeing with Paul?
What do we learn about how to rebuke and how to accept rebuke from this scenario?
(3) All of us are tempted by legalism—even Peter and Barnabas struggled with it. What is it about legalism that is so tempting for believers? Why wouldn’t we naturally prefer grace over legalism?
(4) In this section, Paul claims how the apostles took a strong stand against legalism. Many believers use the term legalism, but don’t know what it means. How would you define “legalism”? What is legalism and how is it different from radical dedication to Christ? See “Defining and Defending Against Legalism.”
Galatians 3 (Evidence from the OT Scriptures)
Galatians 3:1-5 (Personal plea)
Before continuing in his argument, Paul takes a moment to address the Galatians personally. He seems exasperated in this section and in Galatians 4:12-20 where he takes a similar excursus. It’s also possible to read this short section as an argument from experience. That is, the Galatians had a direct experience with the Holy Spirit through believing—not through works of the Law. So, this could be an additional argument that Paul is leveraging. Regardless, he is surely making a personal plea to these young Christians.
(3:1) “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”
After making his extended case for the truth of the gospel, Paul now brings a poignant question: “Who has bewitched you?” Here, Paul moves from the defensive to the offensive, asking, “What is their authority, and how does it compare to mine?”
“Foolish” (anoētoi) implies more than just making a poor decision. It could be rendered “stupid Galatians.” It refers to “either an insufficient or mistaken use of mental powers or a deficiency in understanding itself.”[73]
“Bewitched” (baskainō) means “to exert an evil influence through the eye, bewitch, as with the ‘evil eye’” (BDAG, p.171). The meaning of the word is “is to cast a spell by what is called the evil eye.”[74] This was some form of occult practice whereby a person would use a spell to curse another. In this case, Paul is using this charged word to describe the influence of the false teachers.
“Publicly portrayed” (proegraphē) doesn’t mean that the Galatians saw Jesus hanging on the Cross, but that this was public in the sense that anyone and everyone could know about it. It would be similar to having a billboard on the street.
Because the “who” is singular, it’s possible that there was an “arch-Judaizer,” who was the ringleader of this heresy.[75] It’s also possible that Paul is speaking of “the devil himself”[76] who is ultimately behind all false teaching.
The fact that Jesus was “publicly portrayed as crucified” could refer to the public proclamation of the gospel by Paul (rather than seeing it in person). Or it could refer to the general knowledge of Jesus’ death in Galatia: “The word proegraphē, publicly portrayed, may mean either ‘portrayed’ or ‘placarded’, like some notice of civic interest. The huge hoardings that carry advertisements by roadsides today would be the best parallel in the modern world.”[77] This latter view makes more sense. Jesus’ death was announced publicly.
(3:2) “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”
Believers receive the Holy Spirit at conversion through faith—not by good works. So, the Galatians would have to agree with the second half of the question: They started their relationship by faith, and therefore, they should continue their relationship through faith—not works. Regeneration is a miracle—no less than the miracles referred to in verse 5. Both occur through a supernatural agency—not naturalistic effort.
(3:3) “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
Both justification and sanctification are energized and effective through faith—not works. The believers’ growth is just as supernatural as the believers’ birth. By contrast, the Judaizers were trying to make sanctification naturalistic, rather than supernaturalistic.[78]
(3:4) “Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?”
What suffering is Paul referring to?
(1) The suffering could refer to the persecution they already endured (cf. Gal. 6:12).[79]
(2) The suffering could refer to circumcision—a repeated theme of the letter. Did they go through with circumcision—only to discover that their suffering was pointless or “vain”? (Ouch!)
(3) The suffering could refer to falling under law.
(3:5) “So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”
God’s miraculous work and power cannot be coaxed or manipulated. Only pagan deities can be coerced like this, but not the God of the Bible. God will either work a miracle because he is gracious, or he won’t. The term “provides” (epichorēgeō) literally means “to convey as a gift, give, grant” or “to provide (at one’s own expense), supply, furnish” (BDAG). In other words, Paul is asking, “Did God perform miracles because you worked for them? Of course not!” A gift cannot be earned.
Many believers think that if they act better, then God will start to move. But the key to releasing God’s power in our lives and in our churches is to exercise faith—not works. All of the good works in the world could be just a form of religious manipulation, trying to coerce God into giving us a blessing. This won’t do.
Argument #6: Abraham was justified by faith, rather than works.
Paul has already given evidence about the truth of the gospel from his testimony, the testimony of the churches, and the testimony of the other apostles. Here, he appeals to the testimony of OT Scriptures.
Thesis: Justification by faith
(3:6) “Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Paul had already landed his argument in verses 2-5, but the matter wouldn’t be settled in his mind unless he cited Scripture as his authority. Paul cites Abraham as the premier model of faith (Gen. 15:6). Of course, Abraham didn’t work to earn God’s favor. Instead, the key to his “righteousness” was his faith (“Abraham believed God”).
Likewise, Scripture predicted that all the (Gentile) nations would be blessed through Abraham. Next, Paul cites Genesis 12:3 to show that the blessing to the Gentile nations would be through faith—not works.
(3:7-8) “Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘All the nations will be blessed in you.’”
Paul quotes from the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:3 and Gen. 22:18). He cites this for a couple of reasons:
First, Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6 shows that Abraham was accepted before he did any works, including circumcision (Gen. 17) or his willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22). From this, Paul draws the conclusion that “sons of Abraham” likewise are accepted before doing any works. To paraphrase, Paul is saying, “You agree that Abraham was considered fully righteous by God before he did any works of the Law, correct? Well then, the same is true for you Galatians who are ‘sons of Abraham.’ You are fully accepted by God because of your faith—not your works of the Law.” George paraphrases, “Although [Abraham] became the father of the Jews, he was justified when he was still a Gentile!”[80]
Second, Paul’s citation of the Abrahamic Covenant demonstrates that this isn’t simply for Jews, but for the “Gentiles” who would receive this blessing through Abraham. This verse does not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant for ethnically Jewish people (i.e. replacement theology). After all, Paul only quotes from the portion of the Abrahamic Covenant that was literally fulfilled in the Gentiles (“All the nations will be blessed through you,” Gen. 12:3). Paul does not abrogate the rest of the Abrahamic Covenant as being fulfilled in the Church. Indeed, to state the obvious, Paul isn’t addressing eschatology, but soteriology.
In biblical thinking, a person was a “son” of the person they imitated. Since believers imitate Abraham’s faith, this shows that they are his “sons.” This shows that justification by faith was God’s plan all along—even as far back as the Abrahamic Covenant.
(Gal. 3:8-14) Did Paul properly handle the OT?
(3:9) “So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.”
Gentiles are “blessed” through the Abrahamic Covenant, because they follow in the footsteps of Abraham—namely, they exercise faith. According to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Gentiles will be blessed apart from circumcision. Indeed, nothing about circumcision is mentioned. They are only blessed because of their faith.
Antithesis: Justification by works
(3:10) “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.’”
Why does Paul cite Deuteronomy 27:26? Paul is showing that God’s “blessing” does not come through Law, but through the promise of Abraham. Deuteronomy 27 insists that a “curse” comes on people who are law breakers. Do the Galatians really want to go back under Law, when this only brings a “curse”?
Why does Paul add the word “all”? Paul adds the word “all” when he cites Deuteronomy 27. However, this is the implication of this text—namely, we cannot simply follow some of the OT laws. Such a concept would be unthinkable to a first-century Jewish person—particularly Paul. Moreover, the very next verse in Deuteronomy uses the word “all” to describe God’s commands: “If you diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” (Deut. 28:1).
Paul is alluding to the “blessing” and “cursing” motif of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. He appeals to Abraham’s promise to show that only “blessing” comes from the promise—not “cursing.” Yet, the way of the law brings both “blessing” and “cursing.”
(3:11) “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’”
Paul cites Habakkuk 2:4 to show that “righteousness” comes from faith—not Law.[81] Multiple NT passages cite this verse (Rom. 1:17, Gal. 3:11, and Heb. 10:38). The NT authors cite this so frequently because it shows how to get out from under the judgment of God. In Habakkuk’s day, he wondered why God would use the Babylonians to judge the nation of Judah. He learned that the way out from under this judgment was not through being the “proud one,” because “his soul is not right within him” (Hab. 2:4). Instead, Habakkuk writes that the “righteous shall live by his faith.”
(3:12) “However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them.’”
Paul next cites Leviticus 18:5 to show that Law and faith are mutually exclusive. If believers really want to go the route of Law, then they need to take on the entire mantle of the law—not just certain parts. It isn’t enough to simply adopt circumcision; they need to follow the entire law. Paul will later write, “I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3). Jesus cited this passage to the young religious lawyer who was trying to “justify himself” as righteous (Lk. 10:28-29). Jesus told him the parable of the Good Samaritan to show that this man could not justify himself through good works.
(3:13) “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’”
“Christ redeemed us” (exagorazō). The word “redeemed” or “redemption” comes from the root word agora, which referred to a marketplace. This was “the site of the slave auction where everyday in ancient Rome human beings were put up for sale to the highest bidder.”[82] Paul is saying that Jesus purchased our freedom—not through “silver or gold,” but through his own “precious blood” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). In other words, our redemption cost Jesus everything.
Why does Paul cite Deuteronomy 21:23? Paul cites this passage to show that Jesus—the only One who ever followed the Law perfectly—took up the Cross so that he could be our “Curse Bearer.” The original text states that the hanged person is “accursed by God” (Deut. 21:23). This means that Jesus took our “curse” for us (hyper hēmōn), which strongly supports the view that the Cross was both penal and substitutionary. We deserved the “curse” of the Law (v.10), but Jesus took the “curse” of the Law for us. Likewise, Jesus followed the Law perfectly and deserved “blessing,” but he gave us his “blessing” (v.14). The One who deserved to be blessed was cursed, and the ones who deserved to be cursed were blessed.
“Hangs on a tree.” This doesn’t refer to the modern practice of being hanged with a rope. There is more than one way to hang from a tree. This was a common way to describe crucifixion (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet 2:24). The original text simply refers to being on display in a public execution: “If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, 23 his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day” (Deut. 21:22-23). So, this passage applies to Jesus’ crucifixion.
(3:14) “[Christ redeemed us…] in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
Because Jesus took our “curse,” the Gentiles can now get the “blessing.” Of course, all of this means that the Gentiles should not go back under Law, because this would only result in a further “curse.”
Does the Law override the Abrahamic Covenant?
Paul’s adversaries probably argued that the Law abrogated or revoked the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. That is, the Law of Moses set conditions on God’s promise to Abraham. But Paul argues just the opposite: The Law cannot override the Abrahamic Covenant, because this original covenant was unconditional and cannot be added to.
(3:15) “Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.”
Paul appeals to the practice of everyday covenants (or contracts). Once a contract is signed, it cannot be altered. For instance, if you signed a mortgage with the bank, the bank cannot change the interest rates, timeline, or rules of the mortgage after it is signed. Once it is signed and notarized, the contract cannot be altered.
(3:16) “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.”
Paul applies this illustration to the promise given to Abraham and his “seed” (i.e. Jesus). Once God made this unconditional promise, he stood by it—never revoking it or altering it.
(Gal. 3:16) Was the seed singular or plural?
(Gal. 3:17) Was Paul wrong in saying that 430 years passed between Moses and Abraham?
(3:17-18) “What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.”
Was it 400 or 430 years? Some texts place the amount of time at 400 years (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6), while other texts place the figure at 430 years. This is an example of the Bible using round numbers. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) states that inerrancy shouldn’t imply “modern technical precision,” and it should allow for the use of round numbers (CSBI, article 13). One number is more precise than another, but this doesn’t imply that one number is, therefore, incorrect. After all, if I said, “I live a mile from the highway,” this wouldn’t be an error if we discovered that I lived 1.2 miles from the highway. The same concept should be applied to Scripture’s use of round numbers.
The Law came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant. Imagine signing a lease to rent a house, only to have the landlord double the rent six months later. This would be unthinkable! What is the purpose of signing a contract if the terms can be changed on a whim? Paul uses this same logic to show that the Law did not change God’s original promise of blessing the nations through the Abrahamic Covenant. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant, but not a legal condition on an unconditional covenant. Originally, God gave circumcision as a way to signify his people.[83]
If the Law doesn’t bring a blessing, then why did God give us the Law?
We can imagine Paul’s opponents raising this question: If the Law only brings a curse and it came four centuries after the promise, then what was its purpose? Why did God give it at all?
(3:19) “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.”
The Law had a purpose, but that purpose was not to abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant. Instead, the purpose was to point us to the Promised Seed: Christ. The NASB states that we have the Law “because of transgressions,” but what does this mean? This could be taken in two ways:[84]
- If this is taken as causal, then it would look backward. This would indicate that it was meant to curb sin.
- If this is taken as telic, then it would look forward. This would indicate that it was meant to inflame sin.
The telic use is in view here according to Timothy George[85] and Martin Luther.[86] This fits with the immediate context where Paul needs to explain how the Law is not opposed to the promises of God. If the Law curbed sin, he would have no need to write about this. Moreover, elsewhere, Paul writes, “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase” (Rom. 5:20). This fits nicely with Paul’s message here.
“Added” (pareisēlthen) literally means to come “in by a side road.”[87] In other words, the main road was the Abrahamic Covenant, but God brought in a side road to support the main line.
“Ordained through angels.” This is recorded in the OT, NT, and in Jewish tradition (Deut. 33:2, LXX; Acts 7:38, 53; Heb. 2:2). Implicitly, Exodus 19:16-19 describes thunder, lightning, and a cloud surrounding Mount Sinai during the giving of the Law. Later passages explicitly teach that these referred to angels (Deut. 33:2; Ps. 68:17). Paul could be contrasting the Law with the Abrahamic Covenant by mentioning these angelic mediators. After all, Abraham received his message directly from God, while the people received the Law through angels and Moses.
(3:20) “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.”
This is admittedly a difficult passage to interpret. Our best attempt is that Paul is stating that there need to be two parties for a contract. (It would make no sense for me to make a contract with myself!) However, since this was a unilateral and unconditional contract, Paul is emphasizing that “God is only one.”[88] Instead of having an angelic mediator or a mediator through Moses, we have a mediator through the God-man, Jesus Christ. George writes, “In Jesus Christ, God did not send a substitute or a surrogate, no angelic mediation, no merely human go-between. In Jesus Christ, God, the one and only God, came himself.”[89]
(3:21) “Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.”
There is nothing wrong with the Law. There is only a problem with the way the Judaizers were using or applying the Law (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8). They were using it to gain and grow in “righteousness,” a concept that Paul flatly denies.
(3:22-23) “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.”
In Greek, the order of the words shows emphasis. The word “shut up” (NASB) or “imprisoned” (ESV) or “declares… a prisoner of sin” (NIV) begins Paul’s sentence (sunkleiō). In the LXX, this term referred to being captured in a place or prison (Josh. 6:1; Isa. 45:1; cf. Lk. 5:6). Here is great irony! The Pharisees had created many extrabiblical laws as a “fence” to keep people from breaking the Law. Yet, Paul used “the metaphor of the fence, however, and radicalized it by turning it into a barbed-wire prison wall. Its purpose was not to make the unjustified sinner pure and holy, to ‘impart life,’ but rather to condemn, enclose, and punish.”[90]
Law exists to convince people of their complete and total inability to attain righteousness on their own (cf. Rom. 3:9-20). Of course, the Judaizers were teaching the exact opposite message, claiming that these believers could gain righteousness and grow in righteousness through the Law.
“Faith” uses the article in each of the three cases in verses 23 and 25. It refers to “the faith.” This, of course, refers to the coming of Jesus, rather than a person’ personal faith. Paul already demonstrated that Abraham was declared righteous long before Jesus arrived in his earthly ministry (Gen. 15:6).
(3:24) “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.”
The Law is a like a teacher or “tutor” (paidagōgos) literally means “boy-leader” or “child-conductor.” This was a person who instructed us to come to faith in Christ. This “tutor” was not just an academic teacher, but more like a nanny, and the “dominant image was that of a harsh disciplinarian who frequently resorted to physical force and corporal punishment as a way of keeping his children in line” which even involved “tweaking the ear, cuffing the hands, whipping, caning, pinching, and other unpleasant means of applied correction.”[91] In fact, one ancient author wrote, “Students are scared of their pedagogues.”[92] The Law teaches us just how far we fall short of God’s standard. It leaves us in a helpless state, whereby we cry out to God for mercy.
(3:25) “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”
Once we meet Christ, there is no need to go back under the Law. After all, the teaching was successful. Going back under the Law would be like returning to Kindergarten: At best, it’s redundant, and at worst, it’s bizarre! When we realize our need for Jesus’ forgiveness, we have no need to go back under condemnation. Cole writes, “To return to Paul’s human analogy; once the child has grown up, it is no longer under the control of the slave escort.”[93]
(3:26) “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”
The entire flow of thought has been leading here: Gentiles and Jews have equal status if they come to God through faith. Then, once you’re in the family, you don’t need to continue to try to become a son. You are a son! Paul uses the universal language to drive this home (“you are all sons”). All believers have a new identity as a son of God—not just a select few. Some sons may be less righteous than others, but they aren’t any less sons. See our earlier article, “From Slaves to Sons: The Fatherhood of God and Spiritual Adoption.”
(3:27) “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”
Despite the fact that most commentators understand this to refer to water baptism, we disagree. This refers to spiritual baptism (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 6:3). We are sons of God “in Christ,” not in water (v.26). We were put “into Christ,” not into water (v.27). Paul even uses the provocative language of being “clothed” with Christ, which implies our identity with him. How these clear statements could refer to water baptism is beyond me.
Our identity “in Christ” is similar to an astronaut putting on a spacesuit. Once he’s inside the suit, we can only see the suit—not the astronaut. Similarly, now that we are placed into Christ, God sees Jesus when he looks at us.
(3:28) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This new identity has sociological implications, eliminating the strife of social status, race, and gender.[94] Cole writes, “Some have seen here another thrust at the Judaizers. The Jewish male gave regular thanks to God in the liturgy that he was not born a Gentile or a woman.”[95] Rabbi Judah ben Elai (2nd c. AD) stated, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a foreigner… a slave… a woman.”
(3:29) “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.”
The Abrahamic promise was given to the “seed” (singular). However, since we are all “in Christ,” we inherit the promise of faith given to Abraham. We become heirs “in Christ.”
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verses 1-5. What do we learn about the history of the Galatian church from this section?
(2) Read verses 15-18. Paul is arguing that God’s blessing through Abraham couldn’t be negated by the Law. Explain how Paul makes this argument by using this text.
(3) Paul shows that God’s plan has always been about grace through faith and apart from works. Why is it so important that God’s purposes never change? (Heb. 13:8) What effects could this have if God’s promises could change on a whim?
(4) The Galatians had been falling back under law. What are some red flags might indicate a believer is falling back under law?
(5) Compare and contrast being (1) being rebellious, (2) being rule-based, and (3) being in a relationship with God under grace.
Galatians 4 (Sons not Slaves)
In the past three chapters, Paul has argued for the authenticity of his gospel, and the spiritual bankruptcy of the Judaizers’ pseudo-gospel. Here he somewhat shifts his argument to the practical implications of all of this. One such application is the fact that the Galatians are objectively God’s sons, but they are stuck in the subjective status of being slaves. (For more on this subject, see our earlier article, “From Slaves to Sons: The Fatherhood of God and Spiritual Adoption”).
(4:1) “Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything.”
The term “child” (nēpios) means “baby” in many contexts (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1). Though most commentators believe Paul is thinking in terms of the boy being a “minor” (see NASB footnote).[96]
In the ancient world (both in Judaism and Greco-Roman culture), boys would become “of age” at a definite moment. Boice writes, “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 later, at about eighteen, but there was the same emphasis on an entering into full responsibility as an adult. At this age, at the festival of the Apatouria, the child passed from the care of his father to the care of the state and was responsible to it.”[97]
Before a boy became “of age,” he didn’t technically own anything in his father’s estate. For all intents and purposes, he would’ve looked like any of the other servants around the family’s house. But the moment he “became a man” and received the father’s inheritance, this would all change. Paul is drawing a picture of “of a boy in a home of wealth and standing who is legally the heir and so the ‘young master’ (lit. ‘lord’ or ‘owner’) of the family estate, but who is still a minor and so lives under rules very much like a slave.”[98]
Paul is using this custom to describe believers. Currently, we look like anyone else in the world. But we are on the brink of receiving a massive inheritance from God the Father! Right now, we don’t look like much, but we should act in accordance with what we are going to receive.
(4:2) “But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.”
In Roman culture, the father would set the time for his son to take over his estate. This seems parallel with the concept of being under a “tutor” until Christ came (Gal. 3:25). And yet, the parallel goes further. The “tutor” (paidagōgos) relates to the child’s education (i.e. spiritual birth), while the “guardian” (epitropous) relates to the child’s estate (i.e. spiritual growth).[99]
(4:3) “So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world.”
Most modern commentators believe that the “elemental things” refer to “elemental spirits of the universe, or more fancifully as ‘signs of the zodiac’, which often represented such spirits in popular belief.”[100] Others associate them with the basic elements of Greek philosophy and metaphysics: Hephaestus (fire), Hera (air), Poseidon (water), and Demeter (earth).[101] The advantage of this interpretation is that it is “equally applicable to Jew and Gentile. If the Galatians had been Gentile pagans before they were converted, they could scarcely have been said to have been in slavery to the Jewish law, no matter from what angle it is considered, but they could have been considered as in slavery to the elementary principles of universal moral law. To that extent at least, Jew and Gentile were alike in being children.”[102]
However, we hold that the “elemental things” refer to the Law as the context makes clear. The flow of thought is that the people were under a tutor with the Law, and this brought them to Christ. Now, are they really going to go back under these elementary principles again? They just came out of them! In our estimation, these Gentile converts came from Paganism (v.8) and then the Judaizers brought them under Jewish ceremonial law (v.10). Another possibility is that Paul is comparing the OT ceremonial law to idolatry (v.8)? Regardless, the purpose of this passage is to show the absurdity of falling back under the Law. as George writes, “For the Galatian Christians to revert to the ceremonies of Judaism would be like a university graduate student taking up kindergarten lessons all over again.”[103] Yet this would be worse than going “from Ph.D.s to ABCs,”[104] because this isn’t simply an academic exercise, but a deeply moral and spiritual one.
For further reading, see Gary Delashmutt’s, “Paul’s Usage of ta stoicheia tou kosmou.”
(Gal. 4:3) What does Paul mean by “the elemental things of the world”?
(4:4) “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.”
“But when the fullness of the time came.” The “fullness of time” relates to the “time set by the father” in Paul’s earlier illustration (v.2). See our earlier article, “Why Did God Decide to Spread the Gospel When He Did?”
“God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law.” God had a preexistent Son, who was later born (1 Cor 8:6; 10:4; Col 1:15-17; Rom 8:3; Phil 2:5-9). This shows a “high Christology” in Paul’s earliest letter. Yet, in the same sentence, Paul affirms the full humanity of Jesus, stating that he was “born of a woman.” Both the deity and humanity of Jesus can be affirmed side by side without hesitation by the NT authors.
Jesus served “under the Law,” so that we could be “released from the Law” (Rom. 7:6). Jesus was “under the Law,” but thankfully, he wasn’t under the power of sin.
God sent his SON
(4:5) “[God sent forth His Son] so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”
We were under the “elemental principles” of the world and “under the Law.” But now, God has made us his sons through Christ. Jesus was born under these principles (i.e. the Law) in order to bring us into sonship. God gave his Son, so that we could become sons.
Now that Christ has died for us, we have become sons—not slaves. Sons might do the same actions as slaves (i.e. serving around the estate), but they do it for different reasons. For instance, both a son and a slave will work on the family property. Yet the son does this out of responsibility and love, while the slave does it out of obligation and fear. People under grace can work very hard, but they are motivated out of love and forgiveness—not fear of punishment.
God sent his SPIRIT
(4:6) “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”
God “sent forth” his Son (v.4), and he also “sent forth” his Spirit. Paul seems to be assuming that we can know our faith is true because we can have a direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit. If this isn’t an evidence for the believer, his argument would fall apart. He seems to be assuming that they know they are sons, through the internal witness and testimony of the Holy Spirit.
(4:7) “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
We’re about to inherit a fortune from God. In fact, in an “already-not-yet” sort of way, we already have inherited this fortune.
(4:8) “However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.”
This refers to the pre-conversion state of the Galatians (“when you did not know God… you were slaves”). This is reflected in Paul’s journey to the southern Galatian churches like Lystra (Acts 14:8-18).
(4:9) “But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?”
“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God.” I know the President of the United States as a public figure, but he doesn’t know me. Similarly, it’s more important that God knows me, than that I know him.
“How is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?” Paul is asking, “Do you really want to go back to that old way of life?” This is subjectively forfeiting your right as a son in order to become a slave (Lk. 15:18-21).
(4:10-11) “You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.”
These activities seem to align with Jewish formalism—whereby the worshippers had holy days and annual festivals.[105] Once the Judaizers hooked the Galatians into a little formalism, the next step down the slippery slope was circumcision. In reality, this logic was leading to having to “keep the whole Law” (Gal. 5:3).
According to Paul, this makes spiritual growth worthless or in “vain.” After all of his work of planting, nurturing, and leading this church, he was worried that it would all fall apart.
This apostasy breaks Paul’s heart
This discussion isn’t simply a theological exercise or debate for Paul. The apostasy of these young believers breaks his heart. He shares his heart with them here.
(4:12) “I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.”
“I beg of you, brethren.” Paul makes a personal plea. It wasn’t beneath Paul to make an emotional appeal like this.
“Become as I am, for I also have become as you are.” Paul uses himself as a model of grace. This isn’t boasting. He has already argued that he was a persecutor of the church, and God changed his life. For Paul to not use himself as a model of grace would be to discount God’s work in his life. Incidentally, this is the very first imperative in the letter to the Galatians.[106]
“You have done me no wrong.” It would have been easy for Paul to express his personal hurt and pain, thus making this an affective or interpersonal issue. But instead, he writes that he is angry for their sake—not his own. Paul makes this issue personal, but he does so by making it about the other people—not himself.
(4:13) “But you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time.”
This speaks of God’s sovereignty. Somehow God could use sickness as an opening for the gospel. We are not sure what Paul means by “bodily illness” or “weakness of the flesh” (see NASB footnote; malaria, epilepsy, ophthalmia?). Some argue that it could be a consequence of the torture Paul suffered by being stoned or whipped repeatedly, which isn’t unlikely. Others argue that Paul contracted malaria, or perhaps he had a congenital illness. We simply are not sure—though it most likely had to do with Paul’s eyes or eyesight (“you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me,” v.15; cf. 2 Cor. 12:7).
“The first time” (to proteron) could mean “originally” or “at the first.”[107] This could also refer to Paul’s initial visit to the southern Galatian churches. He likely circled back around later to teach them again when he “returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch” (Acts 14:21).
(4:14) “And that which was a trial to you in my bodily condition you did not despise or loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.”
Paul is reminding them of their former relationship. They overlooked his physical illness and appearance. Paul’s physical condition must have been embarrassing or even disgusting to look at. Yet the Galatians saw through this to see the beauty of the message—not the man. They recognized that he had come from God (Mt. 10:40; Lk. 10:16; Jn. 13:20).
A later apocryphal work gives this description of Paul: “A man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, full of grace. For sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel” (The Acts of Paul, 2.3). The hagiography is clear from this description (“he had the countenance of an angel…”). Yet there are also embarrassing descriptions here as well which point toward its authenticity.
Others disagree that this description carries historical validity. Garland, for instance, states that this description is not only apocryphal, but it could actually be complimentary of Paul’s appearance.[108] He cites other examples that use similar language to refer to handsome generals and even emperors. He concludes, “In my opinion, we have no reliable witness to Paul’s physical appearance and should avoid speculations about it.”[109]
(Gal. 4:14) Isn’t it arrogant for Paul to compare himself to Christ in this way?
(4:15) “Where then is that sense of blessing you had? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.”
By asking them where their “blessing” went, Paul could be harkening back to the discussion about “blessing” and “cursing” in Galatians 3. Because they went under Law, they lost their sense of “blessing.”
(4:16) “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?”
In Christian friendships, we sometimes have to be willing to tell the truth at the risk of the friendship. Without truth, friendships disintegrate in various ways anyhow. Paul was in danger of losing these people as friends due to his commitment to the truth. This further supports that Paul was not a “man pleaser” (Gal. 1:10).
(4:17) “They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.”
When Paul writes that the Judaizers have “shut you out” (ekkleiō), he is using a play on words from Galatians 3:22-23, where Paul wrote that “Scripture has shut up everyone under sin [synkleiō].” He’s connecting the dots for them: The false teachers have turned the Galatians against Paul by putting them back under Law.
(4:18) “But it is good always to be eagerly sought in a commendable manner, and not only when I am present with you.”
Military leader Christopher Kolenda argues that a “disciplined group” will do the right thing—even when no leaders are around.[110] This is a worthy goal in leadership—that people will follow God even if we aren’t around.
(4:19) “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you.”
Like a mother wanting her children to reach maturity and stability apart from her, Paul wants the Galatians to have their identity in Christ to become part of their stability. Paul was like a mother “laboring” to see them find spiritual birth, and now he is like a mother “again” to see them develop spiritual growth (cf. 2 Cor. 11:28). Indeed, the concept of being “formed” (morphoō) in the mother’s womb implies a process over time. Cole writes, “It is therefore inadequate to think of Paul merely as the prince of evangelists; he was also the prince of pastors, and nowhere is this more clearly seen than in passages like this.”[111] In all of his leadership and labor, Paul wanted Christ to be formed in the hearts of these people—not himself.
(4:20) “I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.”
Paul was deeply distraught over the spiritual lives of these believers. He realizes that his “tone” was harsh, and he would rather talk with them face-to-face.
The term “perplexed” (aporeo) means “to be in a confused state of mind, be at a loss, be in doubt, be uncertain” (BDAG). Paul had times of real confusion in his ministry. It baffled him that Gentile Christians would be ensnared by legalistic teaching, rather than free grace.
Paul uses the Law against the legalists
(4:21) “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?”
Paul turns the tables on his opponents. He uses the Law to make his case for grace. Instead of appealing to the Ten Commandments, he looks at a time 500 years before the Law was given by God to tell the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac.
(4:22) “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.”
Paul tells the account of Abraham’s “two sons,” both of whom symbolically represent law and grace. Of course, Abraham had a total of eight sons (six with Keturah) after Sarah died (Gen. 25:1-2). But Paul is just focusing on the first two.
“One by the bondwoman.” Hagar was a former Egyptian slave who came into Abraham’s clan.
“One by the free woman.” Sarah was the wife of Abraham.
(4:23) “But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.”
Ishmael was born naturally. Isaac was born supernaturally. Before Ishmael’s birth, we do not read about hearing a word from God. Indeed, God is silent with regard to Ishmael. Only Isaac’s birth is preceded by a word from God “through the promise.” Regarding the plan to give birth through Hagar, all we read are the words of Sarah when she says, “Perhaps I will obtain children through [Hagar]” (Gen. 16:2). This is hardly a ringing endorsement for this plan of action! This is why Paul calls this “according to the flesh.” This entire plan was “the result of the outworking of the philosophy that God helps those who help themselves.”[112] Paul’s point is that God doesn’t need any “help” in fulfilling his promises.
(4:24) “This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.”
(Gal. 4:24) Are we allowed to interpret the OT allegorically?
(4:25) “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.”
“Arabia” was the territory of the Ishmaelites. Paul is comparing this wider Gentile region as corresponding to Jerusalem!
(4:26) “But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.”
“The Jerusalem above.” This could refer to the city of Jerusalem descending on Earth in Revelation 21:2.[113] Unless, of course, we are reading Revelation too literally on this point.
“Free.” Paul will elaborate on being “free” in chapter 5.
(4:27) “For it is written, ‘Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; for more numerous are the children of the desolate than of the one who has a husband.’”
(Gal. 4:27) Why does Paul quote Isaiah 54:1?
(4:28) “And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.”
Jewish people are born naturally according to their genetic heritage, but believers are born supernaturally according to the Holy Spirit.
The Result? Hostility will occur between followers of Law and Grace
(4:29) “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.”
From the account of Sarah and Hagar, Paul shows that law and grace (works and promise) are mutually exclusive. He also draws the parallel of persecution: Legalists hate the freedom that grace brings into people’s lives, and this leads to persecution. Paul himself was this way before meeting Christ (Gal. 1:13, 23), and so were the legalists (Gal. 5:11; 6:12).
(4:30) “But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’”
Paul demonstrates that Sarah and Hagar could not live side by side (citing Genesis 21:10, 12). Sarah called for Hagar to be “cast out.” In the same way, Paul is calling for the Judaizers to be “cast out” of the Christian community.
(4:31) “So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.”
Paul reaffirms the identity of these believers as sons of God—children of the promise. Paul shows that the slaves do not inherit the promise, but the sons do. Do you want to be slaves or sons?
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verses 1-20. What do we learn about the Galatians from this section?
- Specifically, what aspects of false teaching were spreading?
- What effect was this having on the spiritual lives of the Galatians?
- How was all of this personally affecting Paul?
- What approach does Paul take in trying to reach the Galatians with truth?
(2) Read verse 19. Why does Paul compare his work with the Galatians to a mother’s pain in labor? What is he trying to communicate by using this metaphor?
(3) Read verses 21-31. Explain why Paul is appealing to Hagar and Sarah in order to argue for faith over law.
(4) Compare and contrast what it’s like to live your Christian life as a slave versus as a son. What are differences between these two mindsets? What are potential outward similarities?
(5) How do legalists view believers under grace? Vice-versa? What do they see in each other that pits them against each other?
(6) Paul was deeply distraught over the spiritual lives of the Galatians—without making his hurt feelings the main issue (4:12, 20). Many Christian leaders and disciple-makers handle admonition by making the issue personal.
What consequences might this have if we handle admonition in this way (i.e. making it about our hurt feelings, rather than about the spiritual progress of the person we’re mentoring)?
What might happen if we made the focus of our admonition our personal hurt feelings?
Is it ever appropriate to share our hurt feelings when admonishing others? If so, when would it be appropriate, and how could we do it without falling into manipulation?
Galatians 5 (Walking by the Spirit)
Galatians 5:1-15 (Freedom)
Paul has been defending the truth of Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness for the last four chapters. Now, he shows the practical implications of how this message can change our lives—how it can change your life. Some commentators argue that the transformation of believers is “the most powerful argument of all.”[114] This seems overstated, but there is much truth in this statement. After all, Paul’s opponents—the Judaizers—were arguing that the freedom of grace would lead to sinful living. But instead, Paul shows that this newfound freedom actually leads to deep, spiritual transformation.
What is freedom?
Modern people carry many strong opinions about freedom. In fact, this is one of the virtues of Western culture on which just about everyone can agree. We never see people with picket signs that say, “DOWN WITH FREEDOM!” or “PLEASE CONTROL ME!” Hardly! Modern people hold freedom as a central value—yet they often find the subject hard to define. Indeed, freedom isn’t as two-dimensional as our culture would have us believe. More freedom does not necessarily result in more happiness.
Some freedoms are devastating. For instance, I wouldn’t give a child a circular saw for Christmas or throwing knives for his birthday. Oscar Wilde wrote, “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.’”[115]
Some voluntary restraints are liberating. My friend rode the “Raptor” at Cedar Point amusement park. But his harness broke as the ride took off. He needed to hold onto the seat for dear life as the ride flew through the air. Needless to say, that restraint would’ve been welcomed by him. With the restraint in place, he would’ve been able to enjoy himself on the ride, rather than fearing for life. Here’s the point: More freedom does not equal more happiness. We need voluntary limits to our freedom to have maximal well-being.
Our freedoms often conflict with each other. If we exercise the freedom to binge on TV shows late into the night, then we sacrifice the freedom of a good night’s sleep and a pleasurable workday. If we work 100 hours a week to advance our career, we will lose the freedom to develop quality relationships. If we demand the freedom to eat whatever we want, we lose a higher quality of life. When put to a decision, we often hear people say, “Well, then I just want to choose both!” But as we can see, sometimes, we are forced to choose, and we need to choose wisely.
Consider one more example: If we want the intimacy, love, and security of a relationship, we necessarily need to forfeit certain freedoms.
- Imagine dating a girl and telling her, “I’d love for you to meet my five other girlfriends… They’re great!”
- Imagine telling your fiancé, “I want to travel wherever I want, whenever I want, with whomever I want.”
- Imagine a parent wanting kids, but not wanting to spend any time with them. For many of us, we grew up in homes exactly like this. Of course, we don’t need to argue the devastating results that follow.
We can have autonomous freedom, or we can have the intimacy of relationship. But we can’t have both. At the very least, there is tension between these two extremes. This leads us to the Bible’s teaching regarding freedom—which is surprisingly nuanced and accurate to the human experience. According to the Bible, we will all serve someone or something. The ultimate balance of freedom and restraint is found in following Christ. George writes, “Outside of Jesus Christ, human existence is characterized as bondage—bondage to the law, bondage to the evil elements dominating the world, bondage to sin, the flesh, and the devil. God sent his Son into the world to shatter the dominion of these slaveholders.”[116] The freedom Christ gives us is the freedom to enjoy love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. (Gal. 5:22-23) If we had more love and joy in our lives, we would truly be more free.
(1) Freedom is not being controlled by LAW
(5:1) “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.”
“It was for freedom that Christ set us free.” Elsewhere, Paul wrote, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17 NIV). In context, Paul is referring to freedom from the Law. This is an indicative—what Jesus has already done for us. That is, Jesus set us free from the Law. But what is our role in pursuing freedom?
“Therefore keep standing firm.” Here is the imperative: We need to keep our firm footing on the foundation of God’s grace, rather than falling back under law.
“Do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” The “yoke” was a term that was frequently used to describe taking on the OT law (Acts 15:10). Perhaps Peter read this letter and cited Paul in Acts 15:10. By contrast to this “yoke” of the law, Jesus offers a wonderful alternative. He said, “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Mt. 11:29-30).
Isn’t a little bit of Law good for me?
(5:2) “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.”
The expression “receive circumcision” is in the passive, present tense (“If you should let yourselves be circumcised”[117]). In other words, the Galatians were in the midst of considering circumcision, and Paul is trying to stop this from happening.
(5:3) “And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”
Law and grace are mutually exclusive. You can’t just follow a little bit of Law. If you’re going to take the path of the Law, then you need to take the whole Law. Paul mentions circumcision here, but he also alludes to holy days (4:10), as well as food laws (2:12).
(5:4) “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”
Some decisions in life are nuanced and complicated. But not this one. This is one or the other. We either grow with God through Christ, or we fail to grow because of falling under the Law (cf. Gal. 3:13).
(Gal. 5:4) Does this passage teach that Christians can lose their salvation?
What’s the big deal with circumcision?
Paul uses strong language regarding circumcision. When he writes that Christ will be of “no benefit to you” (ophelēsei), this is a play on words with verse 3, where the circumcised man “is under obligation [opheiletēs] to keep the whole Law” (v.3). Cole loosely captures this play on words by writing, “So far from Christ helping you, you yourself will be helpless in law’s clutches.”[118] Later, he states that this results in being “severed from Christ.” That is, the power for spiritual growth is unplugged when we fall under the law. Why is Paul so serious about this?
Paul doesn’t care about the medical procedure of circumcision. Paul himself was circumcised (Phil. 3:5), and he circumcised others in order to avoid offending people (Acts 16:3). Indeed, in this context, he writes, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Elsewhere, he states that circumcised people should not try to become “uncircumcised” (1 Cor. 7:18; cf. 1 Macc. 1:15). Paul isn’t concerned about circumcision as a medical procedure. Instead, he is against the “theology of circumcision.”[119]
Circumcision was a religious commitment to follow the entire law. Truly the act of circumcision was a serious statement and a heavy commitment. You didn’t just accidentally get circumcised. No grown man (in his right mind) would do this unless he had good reason. This was especially true in ancient times, where the anesthetic was a gulp of wine and the surgical device was a flint rock. Indeed, this is delicate surgery!
In this culture, a person would only engage in circumcision to show their commitment to taking on the “whole Law” as Paul puts it (v.3). Indeed, if you require circumcision for spiritual growth, by this same logic you should require the rest of the Law (cf. Gal. 6:12-16). (After all, if you’re willing to go as far as circumcision, what would you refuse to do?)
Yet, all along, Paul has been arguing that law doesn’t lead to growth, but to a curse. Earlier, he argued, “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them’” (Gal. 3:10). Do you want to “curse” your spiritual growth? Get under the Law! And if you want the Law, then you can’t just stop with circumcision, you need to take on the “whole law” (v.3).
(5:5) “For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.”
Theologians debate what Paul means by “waiting for the hope of righteousness.” Since our justification is in the past (v.4), it’s likely that Paul means that we are “waiting” for our glorification in the future (Rom. 5:9; 10:9-10). In other words, our past justification gives us hope and anticipation for our future glorification.[120] These believers were tempted to gain justification through the law—even though they already were justified (v.4). Paul corrects them in saying that we should only seek for our future, assured glorification—not our past, secured justification.
Instead of working, Paul is waiting. This could be an allusion back to the story of Abraham waiting for Isaac in the last chapter. Rather than working to make things happen with Ishmael through Hagar, Abraham learned to wait on God’s future promise. The same is true for the new covenant believer.
(5:6) “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.”
Paul isn’t against circumcision. Paul isn’t anti-circumcision or anti-Jewish (after all, he was both circumcised and Jewish!). To Paul, the purpose of following God is love—not Law (Gal. 5:14; cf. Rom. 13:10; Gal. 6:15).
Paul isn’t against good works. He believes in “faith working [energoumenē] through love.” Roman Catholic theologians grammatically interpret this in the passive voice, which would translate in this way: “Faith is being created from love.” In this view, we love in order to produce faith. Not true. Grammatically, we can also understand this in the middle voice, which would translate in this way: “Faith is being expressed through love.” The middle voice makes more sense of the passage for several reasons: First, throughout his letter, Paul has been arguing about the logical priority of faith before any sort of good works. Second, in Paul’s writing, faith is typically the root and love is the fruit (Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4; 1 Cor. 13:13; cf. 1 Thess. 1:3). Third, this reading fits with the rest of the NT teaching that we can recognize someone’s faith through their love (Jas. 2:14-26).[121] In other words, Paul is simply saying that “that the faith which justifies is of such a nature that it will express itself through love.”[122]
Paul is for faith being expressed in love. This is the theme of this chapter (Gal. 5:13, 14, 22). The question is simply this: How can a person be transformed into a loving person—through Law or through faith?
Legalistic teachers
(5:7) “You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?”
“You were running well.” Paul often compared the Christian life to an athletic race (Gal. 2:2; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Phil. 3:13, 14; 2 Tim. 4:7). These believers started off well, but they slowed down over time because of legalistic teaching. Paul used this metaphor of “running” to refer to his own ministry in Galatians 2:2 (“for fear that I had been running, or had run, in vain”).
“Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” False teachers were certainly present in this church. Paul uses the singular to refer to a specific person (“who”), and later in verse 10, he refers to “the one” (singular) who is leading believers astray. It seems that there was a single ringleader who was promoting this heresy in Galatia (cf. comments on 3:1)
“Hindered” (enkoptō) was a military term that referred to “setting up an obstacle or breaking up a road.”[123] It’s the same root word for “mutilate” (apokoptō) mentioned later (Gal. 5:12). This makes sense as to why Paul uses such strong language for the false teachers in Galatians 5:12—namely, instead of “cutting” these believers, the false teachers should “cut” themselves instead.
(5:8) “This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.”
Whatever “persuasion” the false teachers used, it was not based on truth (v.7), and it did not come from God (v.8). Paul has spent four chapters arguing precisely this, and now he states it plainly. To paraphrase, “These teachers are not on God’s side.” False teachers seem persuasive to young believers, but Paul expects even young Christians to withstand false teaching (v.10).
(5:9) “A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.”
The “leaven” is the persuasion of the false teachers (cf. Lk. 12:1; Mt. 16:6, 11). These believers were considering a “little law” (circumcision) in their spiritual diet. Paul writes that this is like a “little leaven” that gets into a lump of dough: It won’t stop until it spread throughout the entire loaf of bread. This is similar to adding just a little bit of cyanide to a glass of water: It poisons the entire glass.
Interestingly, Paul uses the same metaphor of “a little leaven” for both legalism (Gal. 5:9) and licentiousness (1 Cor. 5:6). Both have a treacherous and permeating effect on Christian community.
(5:10) “I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.”
How does Paul have such confidence in them? He must be trusting that the truth will have a resonating effect in their lives. By contrast, Paul considers this false teacher (or teachers) to be a non-Christian, under the anathema of God (Gal. 1:8), who will “bear his judgment.”
(5:11) “But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.”
The false teachers taught circumcision so that they would avoid persecution (Gal. 6:12), but not Paul. He was willing to suffer in order to keep the message pure and clear.
Paul isn’t claiming that he preached circumcision. He seems to be separating himself from the false teachers who were teaching circumcision. Since he’s getting persecuted, it shows that he’s not preaching circumcision. Jewish preachers were not under persecution at this time from the Romans or from the Christians. The only ones who were persecuted for their preaching were Christian believers, because they were preaching a “stumbling block” (i.e. skandalon, or the “scandal of the Cross”).
How does preaching circumcision take away the scandal of the Cross? The shocking claim of Jesus’ message is that we do nothing to earn a relationship with God. Boice writes, “All these things—feasts, circumcision, ceremonies, legal observances, or anything symbolizing external religion today—are of man and are part of a system that seeks to attain standing before God through merit.”[124]
(5:12) “I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.”
Commentators have called this statement “startling,”[125] “disgusting,”[126] and the “crudest and rudest”[127] of all of Paul’s statements. The term “mutilate” (apokoptō) comes from the two words apo (“away from”) and koptō (“to cut”). This latter word is used throughout the rest of the Bible to refer to cutting off a limb (Mk. 9:43, 45), cutting off an ear (Jn. 18:10), or cutting ropes (Acts 27:32). In this context, Paul is referring to circumcision, so he is no doubt referring to cutting off the male genitalia.
This could be an allusion to the OT where we read, “No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut. 23:1). Paul is saying that these people should be “excluded from Christ, placed under a curse, and anathematized.”[128] In other words, this is a graphic way of explaining the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9.
Earlier, Paul asked, “Who hindered you…?” (Gal. 5:7). The word “hindered” (enkoptō) comes from the same root word that means “to cut” (Gal. 5:12). This makes sense as to why Paul uses such strong language for the false teachers in Galatians 5:12. That is, instead of “cutting” these believers, the false teachers should “cut” themselves!
Paul isn’t being vindictive or malicious. Surely, he’s using rhetoric. After all, in Paul’s own life, he rejoiced and showed forgiveness when people harmed, attacked, or falsely imprisoned him (e.g. Acts 16:23-31; 2 Tim. 4:16). In this case, Paul is sticking up for these vulnerable Christians. Indeed, Paul himself wasn’t wronged by these false teachers, and in fact, it’s clear he’d never even met them. Instead, he is standing up for these young Christians who are being bullied by these false teachers. We shouldn’t call this malicious, but courageous. Paul is taking a similar view to Jesus, who said that false teachers would be lucky to have a millstone tied around their necks (Lk. 17:2; Mt. 18:6).
(2) Freedom is not being controlled by LICENTIOUSNESS
(5:13a) “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.”
It must be possible to abuse grace. Otherwise, Paul never would’ve cautioned against this. But what is the solution? Fear? Threats? Law? No, the solution to avoid sin is not less grace, but more. After understanding the grace of God, why would we want to sin more? What about the unconditional love of God would make us want to sin more.
Why wouldn’t we use our freedom to sin?
We are free to sin, but we are not free to stop sinning. Jesus said, “Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin” (Jn. 8:34). Sin has an addictive effect on the human heart. As Paul argues in Romans 6, a lifestyle of sin is inconsistent with our new identity in Christ (cf. Gal. 5:13 below).
Understanding the grace of God doesn’t encourage more sin. What about this message of incredible love and forgiveness would cause people to want to kill and harm others? People who use grace as a license for sin simply haven’t understood it or experienced it.
The Holy Spirit begins to work within us. Paul writes, “The love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:5). Those who know Christ also know the love of God through the Holy Spirit. When believers fall into sin, this grieves the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30). As a result, sin isn’t as exciting as it used to be.
Christians still live with the consequences of sin. Being a Christian doesn’t stop a person from going to prison, experiencing destructive relationships, enslaving addictions, or any other consequences.
All Christians agree that God’s grace covers sin on a deathbed conversion (Lk. 23:43). What is the difference between sinning for 80 years and being forgiven at the beginning versus sinning for 80 years and being forgiven at the end? Those who oppose free grace should really question how efficacious they believe the Cross to be. Did Jesus’ death pay for all of our sins or not? (Gal. 2:21)
(3) Freedom is being controlled by LOVE
(5:13b) “But through love serve one another.”
The freedom here is not meant to encourage sinning, but to encourage serving. Earlier, Paul writes, “Do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (douleias)” (Gal. 5:1). Here, he says we should “serve” (douleuete) one another.
(5:14) “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Love is the point—not Law (citing Lev. 19:18). If our hearts were changed to actually love others, we wouldn’t need a list of rules to direct us. When we are walking by the Spirit, we carry out the requirements of the Law. Elsewhere, Paul wrote that Jesus died “so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4; cf. 13:8).
Does this mean that we should love ourselves before loving others? No! I love myself quite a bit. Indeed, I’m an expert at loving myself. In fact, nobody loves me the way that I do! God wants me to learn to love others to this extent. By focusing on others, we get the focus off of ourselves, our performance, and our comparison. God’s alternative to sin is serving.
Galatians 5:15-26 (Walking by the Spirit)
In the previous section, Paul explained that our ultimate design is not to be controlled by law or licentiousness, but love. But how do we grow into more loving people? Paul argues that we don’t need something to change us, but Someone. It’s true that we do need effort. Our problem, however, is that we often place our effort in the wrong areas (e.g. Law, self-effort, willpower, etc.). In this section, Paul explains how to grow through the power of the Holy Spirit.
(5:15) “But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.”
“Bite and devour one another.” Longenecker writes, “The hyperbole pictures wild beasts fighting so ferociously with one another that they end up annihilating each other.”[129] Communities like this result in mutually assured destruction (Gal. 5:20, 26). Likewise, the word “consumed” (analōthēte) is “used of destruction by fire; the basic idea seems to be that nothing at all remains.”[130]
What is the solution to such horrible in-fighting and division? Paul explains that the engine behind the Christian life is the Holy Spirit.
(5:16) “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.”
The order of operations is crucial. Which comes first? Do we try to simply stop sinning? Do we exert moral will power? No, this would be reversing Paul’s order. Paul doesn’t write, “Do not carry out the desire of the flesh, and then you will learn to walk by the Spirit.” Instead, according to this passage, we first experience the Holy Spirit in our lives, discover how to “walk” (peripateō) with him,[131] and then experience transformation. This robs the sinful nature of its power.
“Desire” (epithumeō) comes from the two roots “over” (epi) and “desire” (thumia). Thus, this refers to an “over desire.” We could translate this as a “great desire” or an “inordinate” desire (BDAG). Such a strong desire needs a powerful antidote. As we learn, laws and self-effort won’t do the trick. We need nothing less than the power of the Holy Spirit.
(5:17) “For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.”
Our struggle with sin will be ongoing. There is only victory when we “walk” by the Spirit (v.16), or are “led” by the Spirit (v.18), rather than being focused on the Law. To be clear, the battle is not between my will power and my sinful nature; the battle is between the Holy Spirit and my sinful nature. My role is to actively trust in the Spirit’s power to battle my flesh—not to trust in my will power to battle my flesh.
Our struggle with sin is binary. We will either be conquered by sin or by the Spirit. Fung writes, “In the Spirit-flesh conflict it is impossible for the believer to remain neutral: he either serves the flesh or follows the Spirit.”[132]
Our struggle with sin will be confusing and conflicting. Paul writes, “So that you may not do the things that you please.” How confusing! When I look inside, I discover a fractured self—two desires at war with one another. Because I am a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), I can look at my old self with disgust. But because I am a polluted sinner, I find myself drawn away from God’s will. The “things that you please” refer to positive, godly desires—not sinful living.[133] Elsewhere, Paul elaborates on this inner conflict: “I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it. 18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway” (Rom. 7:15-19 NLT).
(5:18) “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.”
Our struggle with sin will not be helped by Law. Indeed, this is precisely what will hurt our battle against the sinful nature. This passage is parallel to verse 16. In both verses we “walk” or are “led” by the “Spirit.” This must mean that “not carry[ing] out the desire of the flesh” and “not [being] under Law” are also parallel ideas. Again, Paul’s discourse in Romans 5-8 expands on this theme.
Our struggle with sin will succeed or fail based on our trust in the Holy Spirit’s power. This means that we must “walk” by the Spirit and be “led” by the Spirit.
“Led by the Spirit.” This means that I am handing over the leadership of my life to God, rather than gripping tightly to control. Boice writes, “Being led by the Spirit does not imply passivity but rather the need to allow oneself to be led.”[134] To do this, the believer “must let himself be led by the Spirit—that is, actively choose to stand on the side of the Spirit over against the flesh,” or what has been called a “passive-active action.”[135]
“You are not under the Law.” We would expect Paul to say that “we are not under the flesh.” After all, this is the contrast Paul has been using leading up to verse 18. However, Paul states that being led by the Spirit brings us out from under the law. We agree with Fung, who writes, “According to Paul’s exposition in Romans, the law, far from restraining the flesh, actually produces the opposite effect.”[136] In comparing verse 16 with verse 18, it’s clear that Paul is using the concepts of “flesh” and “law” synonymously.
So far, this all might seem abstract. How do we actually do this day to day—moment to moment?
The deeds of the flesh (vv.19-21)
(Gal. 5:19) “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident.” When Paul writes that the deeds of the flesh are “evident” (phaneros), he doesn’t mean that we can always see these visibly. Instead, he means that it is obvious that “such acts originate with the sinful nature.”[137]
These are “deeds” as opposed to fruit in the next list (vv.22-23). We are able to perform “deeds,” but only God can grow “fruit.” The former is natural, the latter is supernatural.
Sexually Selfish
Immorality (porneia) is the root from which we get our modern term “pornography.” This is selfish sex, where I use other people for pleasure. The popular song says, “I’m in love with your body. I’m in love with the shape of you.”[138] From this perspective, we only love a part of the person—not the entire person.
Impurity (akatharsia) means “any substance that is filthy or dirty, refuse” or “a state of moral corruption” (BDAG).
Sensuality (aselgia) is also translated “depravity” (NET) or “debauchery” (NIV). It means a “lack of self-constraint which involves one in conduct that violates all bounds of what is socially acceptable, self-abandonment” or to “give oneself over to licentiousness” (BDAG).
Spiritually Selfish
Idolatry (eidololatria) means to “commit unlawful deeds connected with polytheistic worship” (BDAG).
Sorcery (pharmakeia) is a complex term. The word “originally meant the medical use of drugs; but it came to mean the abuse of drugs for poisoning instead of healing, finally taking on the sense of ‘witchcraft’ or ‘sorcery.’”[139] Colin Brown notes, “The dividing line between magic and religion is often indistinct. Sir James Frazer suggested that religion was characterized by conciliation of superhuman powers, whereas magic is concerned with the control by man of the forces of nature.”[140]
Social selfishness
Enmities (echthra) refers to hatred or hostility. It can be understood as having hostility toward God (Jas. 4:4) or toward people (Lk. 23:12). Since it occurs in the context of both false religion and interpersonal conflict, the usage is not clear. Both types of hostility could be in view—namely, we could hate God and hate his people.
Strife (eris) literally refers to “rivalry” or being “quarrelsome.” This is defined as “engagement in rivalry, especially with reference to positions taken in a matter, strife, discord, contention” (BDAG).
Jealousy (zelos) can be positive or negative. It can refer to “intense positive interest in something… zeal, ardor, marked by a sense of dedication” (BDAG). Or it can refer to “intense negative feelings over another’s achievements or success, jealousy, envy.” (BDAG). So, it can be used to describe our zeal for God (Rom. 10:2; Phil. 3:6), or it can refer to envying the belongings of another person (Jas. 3:14; e.g. gifts, good looks, finances, blessings?).
Outbursts of anger (thymoi) refers to anger that is “more passionate” and “more temporary.”[141] It can be defined as an “intense expression of the inner self, frequently expressed as strong desire, passion, passionate longing” (BDAG). This is the same word used of God’s anger (Rev. 16:19; 19:15). Yet God’s anger is a controlled anger based on his flawless moral nature—much unlike our typical experience and expression of anger.
Disputes (eritheiai) was used before the NT to refer to “a self-seeking pursuit of political office by unfair means” (BDAG). It comes from the root word for a “hired hand” (erithos), who would only work for pay. It later referred to “canvassing for office” or “competing” with others (2 Cor. 12:20; Phil. 1:17; 2:3).[142]
Dissensions (dichostasiai) means to create factions. This would include pitting people against each other. This is “objective disunity,” even in a “political” sense where we form ranks along party lines.[143]
Factions (haireseis) means “a group that holds tenets distinctive to it, sect, party, school, faction” (BDAG). In later history, it was used of a “heretical” sect. This comes from the verbal root “to choose” (haireisthai).
Envying (phothonoi) is similar to jealousy above, but is always used in a negative sense.[144]
Drunkenness (methai) means “‘unrestrained revelry’ [that] may influence methai in the direction of [a] drinking-bout” (BDAG). When we’re living for self, we can’t tolerate it for long, and we can’t do it sober for long.
Carousing (komoi) originally had a good connotation of having a celebratory feast together. Later, it was used “in a bad sense [of] excessive feasting” (BDAG). It’s primary reference was to “the drunken orgies encouraged at festivals of the pagan gods,” and its secondary usage referred to the “general insobriety of pagan life.”[145]
“Things like these.” This list is “representative and not exhaustive.”[146]
“Those who practice such things.” This word for “practice” (prassontes) is a present, active participle. This means that this is an ongoing lifestyle.
(Gal. 5:21) Will sinners not “inherit the kingdom of God”?
Fruit of the Spirit (vv.22-23)
(Gal. 5:22-23) “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”
The Greco-Roman world used these same terms, but with a distinct difference. Greek thinkers used these terms with regard to personal “character formation,” while Paul always used them in the context of “brotherly communion” and the “upbuilding of the church.”[147]
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love.” The term “fruit” is in the singular in Greek. This means the fruit of the Spirit is one virtue: love. The rest of these qualities unpack what it means to be a loving person, who is being transformed by God. This isn’t a list of rules. Instead, it’s a picture of a transformed person. It’s as if God is holding up a portrait of a Christ-like person, and giving us a vision of what we can become. Who wouldn’t want more of these qualities in their life?
Love (agapē) is at the core of Christianity, and it shouldn’t surprise us to see it at the beginning and the foundation of Paul’s list. It is the “greatest” of all qualities (1 Cor. 13:13), and it is the very heart of God (1 Jn. 4:8). Even our gifts are subservient to love. The Galatians knew all about spiritual gifts (Gal. 3:5), yet Paul doesn’t even mention gifts here.
Joy (chara) means “the experience of gladness” (BDAG). While the feeling of “joy” is fleeting, we can always choose to rejoice (Phil. 4:4; Acts 16:25), even during times of “sorrow” (2 Cor. 6:10; cf. Heb. 10:34). This occurs through believing the promises of God (Rom. 15:13). This is independent of circumstances. Paul says he had this “joy” even in the midst of others competing with him in ministry (Phil. 1:17-18). This is because Jesus himself wants to give us his joy (Jn. 15:11).
Peace (eirene) refers to a “state of concord, peace, harmony” (BDAG). In the OT, this is the word translated into Greek from the Hebrew word shalom.[148] It could be the inner peace given to us by Christ (Rom. 15:13; Phil. 4:6-7; Jn. 14:27; 16:33), or the peace we can have between believers (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:11; Mt. 5:9).[149]
Patience (makrothymia) can be defined as the “state of remaining tranquil while awaiting an outcome, patience, steadfastness, endurance” (BDAG). It is “the ability to put up with other people even when that is not an easy thing to do.”[150] It can also refer to the patience needed while preparing for battle. Brown writes, “Being strictly military terms, the various words are readily used as metaphors in connection with the battles of life.”[151] This is the ability to wait on God before the battle and not hit the panic button, and waiting on God “in season or out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2).
Kindness (crestotes) refers to “uprightness in one’s relations with others, uprightness” or “the quality of being helpful or beneficial, goodness, kindness, generosity” (BDAG). Brown defines this as “a friendly nature.”[152] Jesus was strong and fierce, but when kids saw him, they wanted to crawl all over him like a jungle gym! He had a certain affect that would draw people to him.
Goodness (agathosyne) can be defined as “moral goodness in relation to God who is perfect.”[153] It is paired with “righteousness” (Eph. 5:9), though it likely exceeds merely doing what is right (Rom. 5:7). This would refer to standing up for what’s right without being self-righteous. Can people really predict what my advice will be in advance? Or am I easily manipulated?
Faithfulness (pistis) refers to either placing trust in God or being trustworthy with what we’ve been given (Lk. 16:10-12; 1 Tim 1:12; 3:11; 2 Tim 2:2).
Gentleness (praytes) refers to humility or “the quality of not being overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance” (BDAG). It can also refer to the concept of self-restraint. Fung writes, “In classical Greek [this word group was] typically used to describe a person in whom strength and gentleness go together.”[154] Brown writes, “Words from the praÿs group are used of… [tamed] animals.”[155] It refers to “strength under control.”[156] This quality was found in Jesus—thus, it cannot refer to weakness. Boice writes, “Gentleness (prautēs) describes the person who is so much in control of himself that he is always angry at the right time and never angry at the wrong time.”[157] John Stott writes, “The word was also used of domesticated animals. So ‘meekness’ is not a synonym for ‘weakness’. On the contrary, it is the gentleness of the strong, whose strength is under control. It is the quality of a strong personality who is nevertheless master of himself and the servant of others.”[158]
We see this in Paul who writes, “Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?” (1 Cor. 4:21). Paul could’ve brought strength and power, but he chose to restrain himself. This is the way in which we are supposed to restore believers caught in sin (Gal. 6:1).
Self-control (egkrateia) can be defined as “restraint of one’s emotions, impulses, or desires” (BDAG). Paul believed this quality related to our spiritual rewards and generally not being disqualified (1 Cor. 9:25). This word group is used in the context of “sexual connotations” more than any other.[159]
“Against such things there is no law.” When we’re in the Spirit and have this inner change of heart, why do we need laws? Laws can change certain outward behaviors, but cannot change us into people of this caliber and character. We naturally fulfill the Law when we are walking in the Spirit (Rom. 8:4).
(5:24) “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”
Earlier Paul wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20; cf. Rom. 6:6). Here, however, Paul uses the active voice. This concept refers to what “the believer has himself done and must continue to regard as being done.”[160] This fits with the context of continually walking by the Spirit (v.16, 18, 25).
The key to gaining victory over the “deeds of the flesh” is to realize that our old self (“the flesh”) has been crucified. That person we hate, that we’re frustrated with, that constantly disappoints us: he’s dead! God didn’t renovate or change us. Instead, he killed us at the Cross. He started over with a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).
(5:25) “If we live by the Spirit [position], let us also walk by the Spirit [condition].”
Paul uses the first-class condition to describe our position. This could be rendered, “If—and I’m assuming for the sake of argument that this is true—we live by the Spirit…” A simpler way to translate this would be, “Since we live by the Spirit…” Now that we’re a new creation, we are to believe in that new identity and walk in it.
(5:26) “Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.”
Instead of getting the focus on others in competition, we are supposed to get the focus onto Christ in sanctification. Stott writes, “This is a very instructive verse because it shows that our conduct to others is determined by our opinion of ourselves.”[161]
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verse 1-15. In this section, what does Paul mean by the word “free” or “freedom”? How is his definition similar or different to the definition of “freedom” in our modern culture?
(2) Read verses 16-21. Think through the negative qualities that Paul lists. Focus on a few that have special relevance for your life or for your small group. Explain what relative victory would look like in each of these areas. Also explain how we can practically pursue victory in each area.
Do you think it is sin-focused to read books and materials on specific sin issues that we struggle with (v.16)? At what point does it become a sin-focus to do this?
(3) Read verses 16-18. What does it practically look like to “walk by the Spirit” or to “be led by the Spirit”?
(4) Read verse 22. Why does Paul use the metaphor of “fruit” to describe spiritual growth?
Rhetorical questions for reflection: Is “love” one of the most distinguishing features of my influence of others? Do the people that I lead and influence consider me their friend?
Galatians 6 (Practical Application)
After explaining the abstract qualities of a person living for the sinful nature (Gal. 5:19-21) and a person walking by the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), Paul now gives practical examples of living a sacrificial life.
Other people’s problems are my problems
(6:1) “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.”
What does Paul mean by “caught” in a sin? The term “caught” (prolambanō) in Greek is similar to the term in English—namely, it can have two different meanings. The term “caught” (prolambanō) could refer to being “caught red-handed” (see NLT) or to being “caught in a trap” or “ensnared” and can’t break free of the sin pattern (see NET). The word can mean either, depending on the context.
OPTION #1. Paul means that the person cannot break free from a sinful habit. To repeat, the word “caught” (prolambanō) could carry this meaning. Indeed, it can also be translated as “overcome” (NLT) or “overtaken.” This understanding focuses on the prefix (pro) to show that “the sinner has been forcibly laid hold of by sin before he was able to reflect,” and this is why Paul urges gentleness (NIDNTT, 3.750).
OPTION #2. Paul means that the person was caught red-handed. Again, the word can mean “to surprise” (TDNT, 4.14), which would imply that the person wasn’t aware that they were caught in the act.[162]
Conclusion. We’re not sure which meaning Paul has in mind. Regardless, Paul’s focus is on what we should do as a consequence. Our response is not to ignore the person, minimize the person, gossip about the person, or condemn the person. Our job is to get our hands dirty and help.
“You who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself.”
A “spiritual” (pneumatikos) person is not a “ghost” or a “spirit.” Paul uses this term to describe those who are walking according to the Spirit (Gal. 5:17, 25) or are led by the Spirit (Gal. 5:18).
“Restore” (katarizō) is a “a medical term used in secular Greek for setting a fractured bone.”[163] This doesn’t refer to restoring your relationship, but rather helping to restore the person himself.
“A spirit of gentleness” refers back to one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).
“So that you too will not be tempted.” This refers to humility. Even as we approach a friend who is ensnared in sin, we realize that this could just as easily be us. We know that we were just a few decisions away from becoming ensnared the same sin, or a similar sin. Hence, Paul calls for gentleness and humility. After all, we all struggle with sin, and we should be careful not to have a self-righteous attitude. Such self-righteousness could result in an opportunity for us to have a similar fall. This fits with the overall theme of Galatians: self-righteousness results in more sin—not less.
Who are you to judge?
Postmodern people have difficulties with this verse. For one, they reject objective moral values and duties. Second, they reject close community in favor of modern alienation. And third, they lack the basis for getting involved with someone at a deep level.
Yet, Scripture teaches that when someone is caught in a moral problem, it’s a form of love to help. As Christians, we affirm that right and wrong are real and objective categories, and we have a basis for claiming that “sin” exists. More than this, we have a basis for graciously restoring a person after a fall. While Christian community is messy, the postmodern alternative is far worse: minimizing our problems, ghosting one another, and living alienated lives—never really being known or knowing others.
What kind of problems are we dealing with?
(6:2) “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.”
In context, to “bear one another’s burdens” refers to restoring a brother in sin. We can’t bear a burden without feeling a burden. Throughout this entire book, Paul has been writing against an unlawful use of the Law (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8). Now, he writes positively about the Law, but he calls it “the law of Christ.” Instead of a list of moral duties, the main imperative is love.
This implies that we all have burdens, and God will send others to meet these needs (e.g. 2 Cor. 7:5-6). Do you realize that the offer of help from a fellow believer could be God giving you help? By contrast, turning down help from others is turning down help from God. We need to allow others to carry our burdens when we are overwhelmed. George writes, “The myth of self-sufficiency is not a mark of bravery but rather a sign of pride.”[164]
The command is not for us to hold expectations over others, demanding others to carry our burdens. We can make our burdens known, but we can’t demand others to carry them. Instead, Paul’s imperative is for each person to look to carry the burdens of others. This is true biblical love.
When we first come to Christ, we have many burdens. It isn’t surprising to see the Christian community surround us to help carry these. But hopefully, we will not stay in such a spiritual state. We want to get to the point where we can be a love-giver, rather than a love-taker. (See comments on verse 5.)
What stops us from helping people with their problems? Pride!
(6:3) “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.”
How does this verse connect to the previous verse? Walking in the way of Jesus means to restore others with “gentleness” and avoiding self-righteousness (v.1). It means serving sinful brothers by carrying their burdens (v.2). When we think about a lifestyle of servant love like this, we realize that this is the antithesis of pride. Paul jabs at our pride, reminding us not to “think we are something, when we are nothing.” No one is “such a big deal” that they cannot help a fellow sinner! Elsewhere Paul tells us to think about ourselves with “sober judgment” (Rom. 12:3).
(6:4) “But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.”
Why is he encouraging boasting? Earlier, Paul wrote that we should not “become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another” (Gal. 5:26). We typically boast by comparing ourselves to others, but this is a false comparison (2 Cor. 10:12). Instead of comparing ourselves to others (i.e. legalism), Paul encourages us to make a fair comparison. Each person should “examine his own work” before God, not before others. We should ask: “Is my work proportionate with my own gifts, talents, and opportunities?” We should take our work to the Lord and rejoice in what he has empowered us and led us to do. This is what Paul means when he later writes that he “boasts… in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 6:14). Whatever work we’ve done is only possible through the grace of God through Christ. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).
(6:5) “For each one will bear his own load.”
God has certain works that he wants us each to accomplish (Eph. 2:10), and he has made us stewards of our gifts, talents, and opportunities. We can’t pass this “load” off on another person.
Some see a contradiction between verse 2 and verse 5. In one, Paul commands us to “bear one another’s burdens,” but here we are to “carry our own load.” But there is no contradiction when we realize that Paul uses two different Greek words:
- “Burdens” (baros) means an “experience of something that is particularly oppressive” (BDAG). In the Christian community, we move in to help others carry the burdens that they cannot carry themselves.
- “Load” (phortion) means “that which constitutes a load for transport” (BDAG). This can be understood as a “‘shoulder pack.”[165] In Christian community, we should give people the dignity to carry what they are able to carry, teaching them responsibility.
Imagine hiking in the woods on a camping trip. One of your big, strong athletic friends winces as he grabs his lower back. Then, he asks you, “Hey buddy, could you carry my book bag and tent on this hike?” You’re happy to help, so you throw his pack on top of yours, hiking three miles to the campsite.
But once you get to the site, you ask the man, “Hey, why did you need me to carry your bag for the whole hike? Did you hurt your back from lifting weights or something?”
The strong athletic man smiles and says, “No, nothing like that… I just didn’t want to carry it… It’s pretty heavy, and I didn’t want my shoulders to feel tense.”
Of course, this would be an outrage. Yet, many people carry loads for others that they are perfectly capable of carrying themselves. We should probably err on the side of helping others, but we should kindly refuse to take on the responsibilities that belong to another. This isn’t loving others. It’s enabling others.
Financial giving
(6:6) “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.”
Why does Paul shift to the subject of financial giving, and how does this relate to the context? Financial giving is a concrete case of bearing someone’s burden (v.2). Christian leaders and teachers cannot afford to lead and teach full-time, while also working at a secular job full-time. This makes Paul’s principle in verse 2 very practical.
(6:7) “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”
This refers to financial giving.
First, the context of verses 6 and 10 both refer to financial giving. In verse 6, Paul teaches that we should share “good things,” and verse 10 states that we should “do good” things to all people. Both refer to giving our financial resources, and this serves as an inclusio to bookend this section.
Second, Paul uses the proverb of “sowing and reaping” to explicitly refer to money. When writing to the Corinthians about financial giving, he writes, “He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully” (2 Cor. 9:6). He also writes, “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:11) Therefore, “sowing” and “reaping” both refer to the giving of money and the gaining of rewards.
(Gal. 6:7) Does this passage teach karmic law?
(6:8) “For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
If Christians spend money on themselves (“the flesh”), it will rot (“reap corruption”). However, if they spend their money on the cause of Christ (“sows to the Spirit”), it will result in eternal life for others (“reap eternal life”). Indeed, the context refers to giving money to Bible teachers so that they can teach. Thus, Paul isn’t focused on the believer gaining or losing eternal life, but for others to gain eternal life. Boice writes, “If congregations refuse to support them 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.”[166] Thus, eternal rewards are in view here: either we can use our money in a way that will decay, or in a way that will have eternal ramifications.
(6:9) “Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.”
“Let us not lose heart in doing good.” A lifestyle of sacrificial love can be discouraging at times. The term “lose heart” (enkakōmen) means “to lose one’s motivation in continuing a desirable pattern of conduct or activity, lose enthusiasm, be discouraged” (BDAG). Paul struggled with discouragement like the rest of us, but he modeled how to persevere in faith (2 Cor. 4:1, 16; Eph. 3:13). Much of our battle over discouragement is through prayer (Lk. 18:1).
“For in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” What a profound promise! While we cannot always see “observed results,”[167] we can trust that God will bear fruit through our work if we do not “grow weary.” The term “grow weary” (eklyomenoi) means to “be exhausted in strength, become weary, give out” (BDAG). It is sometimes translated as “fainting” (Mt. 15:32; Mk. 8:3; Heb. 12:5). We might compare this to “giving up.”
Paul had already wrestled with the fact that his work in Galatia may have been “in vain” (Gal. 2:2; 4:11). Thus Cole asks, “Was Paul speaking as much to his own heart as to theirs? Were there times when even he almost ‘lost heart’ and wondered if he could ever win over the stubborn, narrow-minded ‘right wing’ at Jerusalem by these deeds of love?”[168] Boice agrees when he writes, “One cannot help feeling that Paul may be talking to himself as he thinks of the extensive but thus far unrewarding efforts he expended on the churches of Galatia. The change to the first person plural supports this supposition.”[169]
(6:10) “So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
“So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people.” Our time or “opportunity” is going to close at some point. While the window is open, we should make our investment count.
“And especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
Why does Paul prioritize doing good to believers over non-believers? Consider a flight attendant who tells passengers, “In the event of a decompression, an oxygen mask will appear… If you are travelling with a child or someone who requires assistance, secure your mask on first, and then assist the other person.” Initially, this might sound cruel: Why should we take care of ourselves first? What about the children?! Yet this principle isn’t selfish, but strategic. After all, if we don’t have air flowing to our lungs, we won’t be able to help anyone. Something similar is at play in serving fellow believers as a priority: If the church dries up and atrophies, then there won’t be anyone to serve the non-Christian world.
(6:11) “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.”
Paul typically wrote through an amanuensis (or scribe), who would write his letters for him (Rom. 16:22). Here, Paul writes the conclusion with his own hand—most likely to show its authenticity (cf. 1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17). George comments, “It was a common convention of Hellenistic letter writing that a secretary or amanuensis would prepare the main body of the letter while the sender would append his signature and perhaps a few closing words of benediction as a way of attesting the contents of the letter and assuring the reader of his full endorsement.”[170]
(6:12) “Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.”
“Good showing” (euprosōpeō) comes from the root words “good” (eu) and “face” (prosōpon). These religious leaders were trying to put on appearances for others.
There must have been considerable religious pressure to conform to old covenant Judaism (e.g. the religious pressure that confronted Peter in Galatians 2:12). The truly brave action was to stick to the truth of the new covenant. These people didn’t care about truth; they cared about avoiding persecution.
(6:13) “For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.”
At the heart of the matter, circumcision was a hypocritical show. The Judaizers couldn’t keep the “whole law” as Paul has been arguing throughout the letter (Gal. 5:3).
Paul wrote earlier that we should boast about how God has empowered and led us into good work before the Lord—not comparing ourselves to others or in front of others (Gal. 6:4). Here, Paul notes that the Judaizers were boasting about how many Gentiles they got circumcised. This is truly a gross display of religiosity (pun intended!).
(6:14) “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
Rather than boasting about circumcising Gentile converts, Paul boasted in Jesus Christ and his life-changing Cross. This is the difference between boasting in Christ’s righteousness and boasting in self-righteousness. Paul “chose something utterly despicable, contemptible, and valueless as the basis of his own boasting—the cross of Christ.”[171]
“The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Before Christ changed our identity (Gal. 2:20; 5:24), all we had was what the world thought of us. It isn’t that the world has died or gone away. It’s that we share nothing in common anymore, and now that we’re identified with Christ, we don’t care what the world thinks.
(6:15) “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
We cannot have a “skin deep” solution to spiritual growth. The key to spiritual growth is to recognize that we have a new identity in Christ (i.e. “a new creation”).
(6:16) “And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.”
“This rule” (kanon) refers to the truth of Paul’s message. Only those who follow this truth (“walk”) will be gain God’s “peace and mercy.” The others are not agreeing with the truth that Paul has been articulating and defending for six chapters, and they will fall under the judgment of God (Gal. 1:6-9).
Premillennialists and Amillennialists debate this passage. Is Paul including “the Israel of God” with the Gentile believers, or is he showing that these ethnic groups are still separate? See comments on this passage in our article, “Galatians 6:16, Does the church inherit the promises of Israel?”
(6:17) “From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.”
Paul didn’t want any more “trouble” or suffering. Indeed, he had “suffered enough already.”[172] He wants these people to experience the “peace and mercy” of God (v.16).
“Brand-marks” (stigmata) refer to the torture Paul suffered. It was the same torture and persecution that the Judaizers avoided (Gal. 6:12). This passage demonstrates that Paul wasn’t self-serving. Why would he take such a beating if he was doing this for selfish reasons? He was persecuted for sticking to the truth; unlike the Judaizers who were avoiding “persecution” (Gal. 6:12). Cole writes, “On that note of peace the battle-scarred veteran ends the tortured letter.”[173]
(6:18) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.”
Paul ends his letter on the subject of the “grace of… Jesus Christ.”
Questions for Reflection
(1) Read verse 2 and verse 5. How do we balance “bearing each other’s burdens” (v.2) with “bearing our own load” (v.5)? When should we encourage a fellow believer to carry their own load, rather than helping them out?
What burdens do you see in those around you? What steps can you take this week to help them carry those burdens? Write these down and make a goal to take these steps this week.
(2) Read verse 10. Why does God elevate giving aid to Christians above non-Christians? How would you respond to someone who said that this is a case of religious bigotry?
[1] Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul: His Life and Works (1875) 1:246. Baur was actually referring to all four “capital letters,” namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.
[2] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 19.
[3] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 1.
[4] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 464.
[5] Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 9.
[6] Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2006), 164. W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 180. Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 35.
[7] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 36.
[8] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 28.
[9] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 48.
[10] See I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 209.
[11] J.B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865).
[12] James Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911).
[13] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 412.
[14] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 24-25.
[15] W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on Saint Paul’s Commentary to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965).
[16] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 3-19.
[17] Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 5.
[18] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 46.
[19] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 3.
[20] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 24-25.
[21] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 464.
[22] Carson and Moo write, “The apostle visited the southern area on his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14), but he never explicitly said to have visited the northern area—though many think that this is what is meant in Acts 16:6 and 18:23.” D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 458.
[23] Ben Witherington writes, “It is in order to point out that there is no clear evidence even in Acts that Paul ever evangelized the cities of the northern part of Galatia. At most there might be a reference to his passing through the region and strengthening existing converts in the area, but even this conclusion is doubtful.” Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 5.
[24] Ben Witherington writes, “The phrase found in Acts 16:6 can indeed refer to one region, not two, the Phrygian part of Galatia. In other words Luke means that Paul passed through the territory already covered (including presumably the city of Pisidian Antioch).” Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 6.
[25] Boice writes, “We know of no churches at all in the north at this early date, either as mentioned in the New Testament or outside it, and what information we do have seems to point to the establishing of churches (which, moreover, remained relatively weak) fairly late in early church history. 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.” James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 415.
[26] Gundry writes, “A traversing of North Galatia would have required an unlikely wide detour to the northeast.” Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (4th edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 2003), 353.
[27] Ben Witherington writes, “It is not really feasible to argue that Paul detoured some 200 kilometers north and east out of his way in order to pass through old ethnic Galatia on his way between Lystra dn Ephesus.” Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 5.
[28] D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 459.
[29] Howard Marshall observes, “It would be difficult for Jewish Christians to shake off centuries of avoiding such occasions and also to stand up to the criticism that would inevitably come their way from non-Christian Jews who might be prepared to tolerate their eccentric beliefs about Jesus but who drew the line sharply at their non-Jewish practices.” I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 211.
[30] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.
[31] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 78.
[32] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 41.
[33] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 88.
[34] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 91.
[35] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians: Only One Way, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 23.
[36] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 95.
[37] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 79.
[38] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 99.
[39] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 106.
[40] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 106.
[41] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 116.
[42] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 68.
[43] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 70.
[44] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 124.
[45] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 391.
[46] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-), 392.
[47] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 74.
[48] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 95.
[49] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 74.
[50] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 187.
[51] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 85.
[52] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 136.
[53] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 89.
[54] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 104.
[55] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 140.
[56] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 89.
[57] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 93-94.
[58] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 148.
[59] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 106.
[60] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 156.
[61] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 170.
[62] G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 34.
[63] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM, 1971), 115.
[64] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 106.
[65] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 177.
[66] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 119.
[67] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 181.
[68] We reject the older, critical thesis of F.C. Baur from the Tubigen School that this fight caused a massive fissure in Christianity. Being influenced by the thinking of Hegel, Baur held that Paul defended the Gentiles (thesis) and Peter defended the Jews (antithesis), and this was resolved in the second century by melding the NT documents together (synthesis). This is nonsense.
[69] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 196.
[70] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 120.
[71] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 197.
[72] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 123.
[73] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 129.
[74] C. Brown, J. Stafford Wright, and C. Brown, “M,” ed. Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 559.
[75] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 131.
[76] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 207.
[77] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 132.
[78] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 133-134.
[79] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 134.
[80] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 223.
[81] In Habakkuk 2:4, the term “faith” (ʾemûnâ) is translated as “steadfastness” or “fidelity.” However, Fung points out that “faithfulness” is based on “faith,” and we cannot have the former without the latter. Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 144.
[82] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 237-238.
[83] G. E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954): 62.
[84] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 253.
[85] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 254.
[86] Luther’s Works, 26.309.
[87] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 253.
[88] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 162.
[89] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 258.
[90] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 263.
[91] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 265, 266.
[92] Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Epistle 36.
[93] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 153.
[94] Specifically, Paul uses the terms for “male and female,” rather than husband and wife. He is showing that the issue is gender—not related to marriage.
[95] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 156.
[96] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 157-158.
[97] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 471.
[98] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 162.
[99] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 158.
[100] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 160.
[101] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 297.
[102] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 159.
[103] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 296.
[104] To be clear, George holds the view that Paul’s use of ta stoicheia tou kosmou relates to paganism (“cosmic captivity to the demon-lords and sham gods of their pagan past”). Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 296.
[105] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 193.
[106] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 320.
[107] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 197.
[108] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 448.
[109] David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, vol. 29, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 448-449.
[110] Christopher Kolenda, Leadership: The Warrior’s Art (Army War College Foundation Press, 2001).
[111] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 175.
[112] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 338.
[113] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 343.
[114] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 188.
[115] Oscar Wilde, An Ideal Husband (1893).
[116] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 354.
[117] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 488.
[118] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 191.
[119] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 487.
[120] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 226.
[121] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 491.
[122] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 230.
[123] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 489.
[124] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 491.
[125] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 491.
[126] W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on Saint Paul’s Commentary to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 438.
[127] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 234.
[128] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 372.
[129] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 244.
[130] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 210.
[131] Timoty George writes, “The students of Aristotle were known as the Peripatetics because of their habit of following the philosopher around from place to place as he dispensed his teachings. In Paul’s vocabulary, to walk in the Spirit or be led by the Spirit means to go where the Spirit is going, to listen to his voice, to discern his will, to follow his guidance.” Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 386.
[132] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 251.
[133] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 211.
[134] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 495.
[135] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 251.
[136] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 252.
[137] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 496.
[138] Ed Sheeran, “Shape of You.” 2017.
[139] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 256.
[140] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 552.
[141] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 258.
[142] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 258.
[143] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 259.
[144] H. Ridderbos, Paul, p.297. Cited in Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 259.
[145] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 217.
[146] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 260.
[147] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 272.
[148] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 777. Used about 250x in the LXX.
[149] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 266.
[150] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 402.
[151] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 764.
[152] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 105.
[153] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 98.
[154] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 269-270.
[155] Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther, and Hans Bietenhard, New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 256.
[156] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 404.
[157] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 499.
[158] John R. W. Stott, God’s New Society: The Message of Ephesians, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979).
[159] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 271.
[160] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 500.
[161] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians: Only One Way, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 156.
[162] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 409.
[163] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 501.
[164] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 413–414.
[165] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 227.
[166] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 504.
[167] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 232.
[168] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 233.
[169] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 504.
[170] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 430.
[171] Timothy George, Galatians, vol. 30, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 436.
[172] James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 507.
[173] R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 9, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 233.