The Ways of Christ’s Law (5:26–6:10)

Galatians 5:13–6:10

The True Basis for Ethics (Refuting Detractors) (5:13–6:10)

Scholars debate where the final section of the body of Galatians begins. Most likely, it begins at 5:13. Although commentators understandably sometimes concisely summarize the section as chapters 5–6 and provide comment at 5:1 or 5:2, I have, with a majority of commentators, arranged comments on the body’s closing section here.

John Barclay surveys the major lines of interpretation for 5:13–6:10:

Most scholars note that this section addresses the living-out of ethics. Acknowledging that a righteous status is a free gift in Christ does not lead to immorality, at least not for those truly born from God’s Spirit. Far from it! Rather, this gift of righteousness also includes or is accompanied by (depending on the interpreter’s lexical evaluation of δικαιοσύνη [dikaiosunē]) divine empowerment to live righteously. In a sense, Gal. 5–6 answers the question posed in 3:3: “After you began with the Spirit, are you now completing yourselves with flesh?” Instead, they must be completed “by the same Spirit with whom [they] began.”

This section thus qualifies Paul’s emphasis on the era of the law having ended; the fuller righteousness to which the law always pointed is now fulfilled for those who live by Christ (5:14, 18, 23; 6:2). Paul’s words about the passing of the law (3:17–23; 4:1–6) do not refer to the righteousness of the law; when Christ the law-fulfiller (4:4) lives in and through believers, they live out the fuller righteousness to which the law merely bears witness. Paul expects good “works” (6:4, 10), but as the fruit of Christ’s righteousness rather than its cause.

Nor does the positive treatment of the law oppose Paul’s earlier resistance to its adherence demanded to become a believer. As Richard Longenecker puts it, “The antidote to license in the Christian life is not laws, as the Judaizers argued, but openness to the Spirit and being guided by the Spirit.”

Concluding exhortations do characterize many of Paul’s letters, including Galatians. Yet even Luther, who saw the final chapters of Galatians as diverse exhortations to believers once they have converted, could sometimes recognize grace as a transforming gift: “Faith, however, is a divine work in us which changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1[:12–13]. It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different men. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. . . . Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever.”

Moreover, 5:13–6:10 is not exclusively hortatory: imperatives dominate 5:13–16; indicatives, 5:17–24; and 5:25–6:10 mixes indicative verbs with imperatives and hortatory subjunctives. Indeed, the focus of 5:13–24 is indicative, on what believers already are in Christ. The tension between indicative and imperative—the summons to “be” (act in accord with) “what you already are” (your identity in Christ)—is a significant theme in Pauline discussions of ethics.

Why does Paul reserve this argument for the final section of his letter’s body? Sometimes one would save one’s most compelling argument for the end. Galatians 5:13–6:10 is the climax of Paul’s argument so far. To neglect the closing section when studying the more theologically debated material in 2:14–3:25 is to make it quite likely that one will miss Paul’s overall argument. Indeed, one expert in ancient rhetoric even contends that “the exhortation of chapters 5–6 . . . is the point of the letter.”

Serving One Another (5:13–15)

5:13

13For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters—just not a freedom to be exploited by the flesh. Instead, serve one another as slaves through love.

Having established that God has called the Galatian believers to spiritual freedom (4:8–9; 4:31–5:1, esp. 5:1), Paul now exhorts them to use this freedom to serve one another (5:13). Everyone understood that people sometimes twisted liberty into license. Josephus, for example, condemns someone who exploited supposed “liberation” from Moses’s “tyranny” as an excuse for moral license; for Paul, by contrast, some were genuinely using the law to subjugate believers (2:3–5). Some, not least Paul’s opponents, might have wished to depict license as the result of Paul’s course (cf. Rom. 3:8).

Speakers often warned against the abuse of freedom; true freedom, Dio Chrysostom opined, was knowledge of and choosing what was appropriate, rather than license to follow mere desires. As in the case of “free” cities, freedom meant a high degree of self-governance rather than external constraint; freedom from external constraint of the law allows obedience to the law of Christ without interference (Gal. 6:2). Many thinkers also regarded freedom from selfish passion as needed for the sake of corporate welfare.

Paul warns against freedom being exploited by the flesh (5:13). Scholars sometimes read the term behind my exploited here (ἀφορμή, aphormē, usually translated as “opportunity”) as a military metaphor, given what they regard as warfare language in 5:16–18; but the semantic range of the term is much broader by this period, and Paul’s usage is not so restrictive (Rom. 7:8, 11; 2 Cor. 5:12; 11:12; cf. 1 Tim. 5:14). Flesh here is σάρξ (sarx), which some scholars view as personified here. For Paul, the realm of flesh is whatever has not been transformed by the eschatological Spirit; a mere mark in the “flesh,” circumcision (Gal. 6:12–13; cf. Gen. 17:9–14), was not sufficient to bring the flesh under divine rule.

Greek culture in particular demeaned slavery (δουλεία, douleia, as in 5:1) as the antithesis of freedom. A call to serve (δουλεύω, douleuō) one another would therefore sound paradoxical, especially given Paul’s emphasis on liberation from slavery earlier in the letter. (The NRSV’s “become slaves” rightly captures the slavery image but lays too much emphasis on initial enslavement; the point is rather to regularly act as slaves to one another, so serving one another’s interests.) As Luther puts it here, “The freedom of the Christian is a slavery to love.” Like the slave role of burden-bearing in 6:2, this slavery does not cancel hierarchy but rather makes “it reciprocal, a hierarchy that turns both ways.”

Such paradox was, however, readily intelligible; paradox was familiar in ancient reasoning. Voluntary service differs from involuntary servitude. Thus Xenophon depicted some as declaring that whereas slaves serve masters under compulsion, they would serve Cyrus willingly as those who are free. Philo likewise opined paradoxically that only the one who serves God alone is truly free.

5:14

14This is what you should do because the entire law is fulfilled in this one teaching: “You shall love your neighbor as if they were yourself.”

In 5:14, Paul’s summary of the law in the love commandment undoubtedly evokes Jesus’s teaching. Although one rabbi after Paul’s time named love as the chief commandment, that was one rabbinic view about the greatest commandment among many. Others valued love of neighbor but did not specifically rank this as the greatest or second-greatest commandment. Love remains the supreme virtue pervasively in various strands of the early Christian movement (e.g., Rom. 13:8–10; 1 Cor. 13:1–13; Gal. 5:14, 22; Col. 3:14; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 10:24; 1 John 2:10; 3:14; 4:7–9), a unanimity on the topic nowhere else attested in antiquity. This observation suggests that Jesus’s teaching (Mark 12:30–31) strongly shaped early Christian ethics.

Jesus appeals to two love commandments, bound together by a shared Hebrew word meaning “You shall love.” Matthew adds that Jesus treated these commandments to love as not only the greatest, but a sort of epitome of the commandments (Matt. 22:40; cf. 7:12). This follows a practice familiar from some other Jewish sages, that of finding commandments that epitomized the Torah as a whole. For example, one later tradition claimed that the pre-Christian sage Hillel made not doing to one’s neighbor what one did not want done to oneself the central principle that the rest of the Torah merely elaborated. Another rabbinic saying speaks of an honest and well-liked person as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah. One might even compare the view attributed to the Greek sage Antisthenes: the law of virtue, rather than written laws, will guide a wise person’s actions (see other examples at Gal. 5:23).

Given this tradition, it is reasonable to understand Paul as epitomizing the law here, although Paul’s other statements show that he, unlike the rabbis, would not have required literal observance of all the law’s stipulations besides the demands of love. For Paul, it is the spirit of the law that counts; gentile believers are spiritual children of Abraham, but they are not ethnic Israelites living in the holy land before the coming of Christ. For Paul, this may be “a different way of ‘doing’ the law.”

Some others regard love of neighbor as more demanding than the entire law, presumably because it goes beyond the Torah’s sample stipulations. Technically, though, such love is one of the Torah’s stipulations. Nevertheless, as in Jesus’s citation of Lev. 19:18, it may also function as the summary of the moral value to which the law merely points.

As will become clearer in Paul’s discussion in 5:16–25 (esp. 5:18b, 23), however, Paul views this law less as a moralistic prescription than as a description of how the moral intention of the law is fulfilled when believers love their neighbors.

Some scholars suggest that this key difference may be why Paul writes πεπλήρωται (peplērōtai, is fulfilled, so also NASB, NIV; NRSV: “is summed up”; NET: “can be summed up”), choosing to use πληρόω (plēroō) rather than a term more customarily used with the law. One may “do” all the individual laws (3:10, 12; 5:3), but “fulfilling” the law is something more. Scholars diverge regarding the specific sense of “fulfilled,” however. Some understand it as simply “summarized” or “summed up,” as in the Jewish examples above but with a different term. (With τελέω [teleō] instead of πληρόω, it applies to keeping the law in Rom. 2:27.) Some relate this to how God’s promised plan was fulfilled in Christ (Gal. 4:4). Some see Paul approaching the law here as Scripture, as promise fulfilled in Christ.

Some see πεπλήρωται here as the law completed and/or perfected in Christ, sometimes even arguing that Christ is the one who loves here. This last interpretation is implausible; in 6:2, it is believers who will fulfill the law of Christ. Moreover, contextually, the quotation plainly addresses believers loving one another (5:13) as opposed to harming one another (5:15). Given the probably parallel thought in 6:2, where Paul uses the cognate ἀναπληρόω (anaplēroō), scholars may be making too much of the specific term here. Both terms have a wide semantic range, and Paul may use them both for fulfilling the entire purpose of the law by observing the law of love.

Who is the neighbor one is commanded to love (cf. Luke 10:29)? Jews sometimes applied it to fellow Jews; some sectarians applied it especially to members of their own sects. The context of Lev. 19:18 applies it to foreigners as well as Israelites (19:33–34), a principle sometimes recognized in antiquity. In practice, one might succeed at such a level of love only with one’s most intimate friends, but it remained the ideal. The saying presupposes that normally one already loves oneself.

Paul applies the principle here especially to the Galatians’ treatment of others in their Christian community, in the context of serving one another (ἀλλήλων, allēlōn, 5:13) rather than harming one another (ἀλλήλων, 5:15). Still, Leviticus extends the principle beyond one’s closest kin (again, as noted above, to foreigners), and Paul elsewhere applies the text in a context addressing treatment not only of believers but also nonbelievers (Rom. 12:14–13:10). Reasoning from one’s own experience of valuable personhood to the value of other persons is an important foundation in human moral reasoning.

5:15

15But if you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you’ll entirely consume one another!

The antithesis of serving one another in 5:13 is devouring one another in 5:15. The strife against which Paul warns in 5:15 is ruled out by love of neighbor in 5:14; in fact, the immediate context of 5:14’s quotation of Lev. 19:18 warns against bearing a grudge against fellow members of God’s people.

History and literature vividly illustrate the principle here: groups united in fighting for liberation (cf. 5:13) often turn on one another afterward. Does Paul write 5:15 on the basis of specific knowledge of behavior in Galatian churches? The grammar may assume a real condition, though it might be merely being presented as real. That Paul specifically raises the warning here, and that social vices figure so heavily in 5:20–21, suggests that Paul does in fact have knowledge about strife in one or more of the churches of Galatia (and not simply a commendable conflict with Paul’s opponents; cf. 1 Cor. 11:19).

Comparisons with beasts, as presumably here, were common in ancient moral literature, usually for people subject to their own passions rather than reason. Paul uses such images in 1 Cor. 15:32 and Phil. 3:2. The more specific image of devouring one another here also evokes cannibalism, an image that provoked almost universal horror in the mainstream Greco-Roman world.

Bestial images could also be used figuratively with regard to biting, as here: the first-century Stoic Musonius Rufus said that to bite back one’s biter—returning harm for harm—is to act not like a human but a beast. Biting or devouring one another could be applied figuratively to various forms of hostile behavior. Israel’s exploitive leaders could be depicted as devouring the flesh of the people (Mic. 3:2–3). Jesus spoke of religious leaders devouring widows’ houses (Mark 12:40), and Paul speaks of his opponents “devouring” (the same Greek term, κατεσθίω, katesthiō) the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:20). An early Jewish tradition declared that only fear of the Roman government restrains people from “swallowing one another alive.” Like Musonius Rufus above, gentiles also sometimes used the image figuratively. Paul’s images in the context may not be connected here, but if they are, he might think of the Galatians having learned from their wayward teachers how to cut off others’ parts (cf. 5:12).

In another context, Robert Jewett points out that “in the competitive environment of the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds, the desire to surpass others and to achieve honor had invaded the arena of religion, perverting it into a means of achieving superiority.” Those preoccupied with competition—including meritorious spiritual achievement (as, a different way, in Corinth) or going beyond what Christ has provided—are not so free to look out for others’ needs.

Following the Spirit’s Steps (5:16–25)

If we are ruled by the Spirit of God’s Son, who fulfilled the law (4:4–6), we do not depend on the formal law (5:18, 23), because we live as God’s sons and daughters, and thus in intimate, direct relationship with him rather than under a pedagogue (3:24–25).

Writers sometimes concisely outlined what they would cover before covering it. Paul treats the opposition of the Spirit and the flesh in 5:16–18, then he treats in detail (but in chiastic order) flesh (5:19–21) and Spirit (5:22–23).

Although some interpreters are overly creative in identifying chiastic structures (in Galatians, notably Bligh), some chiastic structures do appear to emerge from the text. In the following structure, my suggested potential parallels in A/A′ and B/B′ may well be purely imaginative, but other elements do seem to reflect a pattern.

A (?) 5:1–12: Crucifixion (5:11) rather than circumcision; reject circumcisionists; persevere to eternal life

B (?) 5:13a: Do not let the flesh exploit your freedom

C 5:13b: Become slaves to one another + 5:14

C 5:14: (Christ’s) law: love one another

D 5:15: Stop competing against one another lest you harm one another

E 5:16: Walk by the Spirit

F 5:17: The Spirit supplants the flesh

G 5:18: Those led by the Spirit are not under the law

H 5:19–21: The works of the flesh

H′ 5:22–23: The fruit of the Spirit

G′ 5:23b: Against the Spirit’s fruit is no law

F′ 5:24: The flesh has been crucified

E′ 5:25: Walk by the Spirit

D′ 5:26–6:1: Stop competing against one another; use gentleness

C′ 6:2: Christ’s law: bear others’ burdens (as slaves would)

B′ (?) 6:3–5: Do not seek for others to benefit you

A′ (?) 6:6–12: Support good teachers; crucifixion rather than circumcision; reject circumcisionists; persevere to eternal life

Paul emphasizes here that the solution to the passions of the flesh is not more laws, but rather the Spirit, who transforms from within. Paul has biblical grounds for affirming that, to the extent that we follow the eschatological Spirit, we follow God’s commands; see Ezek. 36:26–27. Paul alludes to this text as part of the new covenant reality in 2 Cor. 3:3 and probably alludes to it here as well: the Hebrew text of Ezek. 36:27 speaks of the Spirit enabling God’s eschatological people to “walk” in his commands and do them.

The contrast between Spirit and flesh unites 5:16–25, with 5:16 introducing this key issue and the image of walking by the Spirit framing the section (5:16, 25). The church father Marius Victorinus articulates the ideal: “The whole essence of the gospel is to think according to the Spirit, to live according to the Spirit, to have nothing of the flesh in one’s mind and acts and life. . . . You will admit into consciousness no sin, which is born of the flesh.” As E. P. Sanders puts it, Paul was interested not merely in forensic righteousness, but rather in ontological transformation and deliverance from sin.

5:16

16So this is what I’m saying: as you walk by the Spirit, there’s no way you’ll fulfill the flesh’s desire.

Some translations render walk by the Spirit here as “live by the Spirit” (NRSV, NET). Although “live” or “follow a way of living” communicates much of the basic idea, it does miss the basic connection with 5:25. Although Paul is not always consistent with his metaphors even in the same paragraph, walking in the Spirit might continue the imagery of locomotion and the danger of tripping in 5:7 and falling in 5:4.

Gentile thinkers spoke of walking in terms of leisure, though sometimes it was used for contemplation and meditation. Occasionally they could use “walk” to mean “behave,” but this sense was far more characteristic of Jewish usage, grounded in Hebrew idiom and ancient Near Eastern thought. Although the LXX often changed the Hebrew verb hālak to a less colorful term for movement (essentially, “go”), the Hebrew verb meant both “walk” and “conduct one’s life.” One should thus “walk in” righteousness, in God’s commandments, and in his “ways.” Later rabbis spoke of legal and moral discourse as halakah, “walking.” This idea is relevant to the Spirit’s alternative here to formal adherence to the Torah (Gal. 5:18, 22–23). Paul might even evoke Ezekiel here; as already noted, God promised to put a new heart and his Spirit in his people so that they would walk according to his commandments (Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:27; 37:24).

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, consistent with their moral, vertical, and apocalyptic dualism, God set two spirits, one good and one bad, in whose ways people would walk. One should walk perfectly in all of God’s ways, so one would not follow the plans of the guilty inclination. This antithesis between “walking” by the Spirit and fulfilling the desires of the flesh may evoke the familiar ancient image of the choice between the “two ways.” The image appears in gentile sources as well as in Jewish ones, and early Christians developed the image further (cf. “the way” in Acts 9:2).

Rabbinic and other Semitic-language Jewish sources treat the Torah as the remedy or antidote for the evil impulse. Diaspora Jews also believed that the law enabled them to overcome passions. For Paul, by contrast, God’s own Spirit is the antidote, enabling one to fulfill the righteousness of the law (cf. Rom. 7:5–8:4). Whereas Jesus in Judea preached God’s reign, in the Diaspora Paul, using language that was potentially less politically provocative, contends that God exercises his rule in the lives of his people by his Spirit (Rom. 14:17).

Formally, the contrast can resemble the Stoic notion that reason rather than passion should control human decisions; reason rules that one should live according to nature, which reveals divine wisdom. For Paul, however, the Spirit is not equivalent to human reason, because it is God’s Spirit; Paul does not share the philosophic conception of innate divinity. Nor would he agree with the Stoic approach: their detailed collection of practical rules, though guided by principles, was certainly no closer to dependence on the Spirit than was formal adherence to the Torah.

The antithesis between spirit and flesh in some form, usually framed more by Platonic philosophy than by Paul’s own emphasis on God’s Spirit, undergirded Christian moral thought through the medieval period. By the ninth century, Haimo of Auxerre could summarize that some construed “spirit” here as the human spirit and others as the Holy Spirit, accepting both interpretations as possible. In the late eleventh century, Bruno the Carthusian even contends that the spirit here is “reason.” Nearly all modern exegetes today, however, recognize that the reference is to God’s Spirit. The struggle between the human mind or spirit and bodily passion was familiar among philosophers, but Paul deliberately reframes that formula by substituting God’s Spirit, while recognizing the continuing, valid role of reason provided that it is divinely renewed and empowered.

Many thinkers condemned lusts or cravings, which they often associated with the body (see “A Closer Look: The ‘Flesh’”). The flesh’s desire (5:16) here is a subjective genitive, since it is flesh that does the desiring in 5:17. The contrast between Spirit and flesh that dominates 5:16–17 is a contrast between flesh and God’s Spirit. The Diaspora Jewish thinker Philo at least once uses such language, contrasting the sort of people who live by the divine Spirit and reason, stamped in the divine image, with those who live for the pleasure of the flesh.

A CLOSER LOOK: THE “FLESH”

Some Greek thinkers disparaged or relativized the flesh because of its mere materiality or sometimes its association with passion rather than reason. But Paul’s specific verbal contrast between “flesh” and “Spirit” appeared early in the Bible of Paul and his contemporary believers. In Gen. 6:3, the contrast is between mortals as “flesh” and God’s Spirit. Such background may inform Ezek. 11:19 and 36:26, where God puts a new Spirit and a new heart in his people’s flesh: people cannot be what God created them to be without his Spirit.

Greek intellectuals were not alone in positing an anthropological dualism. Some Jewish sources differentiated the bodily and nonphysical aspects of a person, although this was much more common among Diaspora Jews. In the OT, “flesh” merely connoted mortality and weakness, but the Dead Sea Scrolls, which also contrast flesh and Spirit, sometimes emphasize also the moral aspect of this weakness—that is, vulnerability to sin. As in the OT, Paul can use “flesh” merely to designate human finiteness; but, as in some other Jewish sources, he can also apply it to susceptibility to sin. With the exceptions of 2 Cor. 7:1 and Col. 2:5, Paul’s contrasts between flesh and the Spirit normally involve God’s Spirit, as the full context shows (cf. Rom. 1:3–4; 7:6; 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 3:3; 4:29; 5:17; 6:8).

Greek thought often connected passions with the body as opposed to reason. The Platonic tradition in particular often spoke of the body as a prison or chains imprisoning the soul. Such ideas led some toward asceticism. Educated Mediterranean Diaspora Jews also often associated the body with passions, with passions enslaving the soul to the body. Sometimes they even treated the body as a prison or tomb. Divine matters were foreign to the body or “flesh.” Only attention to piety would protect one from the “passions of the flesh.”

Like most Judeans, Paul values the body, anticipating its resurrection (Rom. 8:11, 13, 23; 1 Cor. 6:13–14; 15:44; Phil. 3:21; cf. 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:14), though he avoids associating the resurrection with “flesh” because of its connotations of mortality and vulnerability (1 Cor. 15:50; cf. Gal. 6:8). The body could be used for either good (Rom. 12:1; cf. 6:13) or evil (Rom. 1:24; 6:12–13; 7:5). But bodily passions, neutral if controlled for their legitimate purposes, were dangerous if allowed to overpower the moral discipline of the mind (Rom. 1:28; 7:23).

Paul associates “desire” especially with the flesh (Gal. 5:16–17; cf. 5:24; Rom. 6:12; 13:14; Eph. 2:3), though in Gal. 5:17 the Spirit asserts desire against the flesh. Some connect this with the evil impulse of Judean thought. The evil impulse’s alleged connections with the body are fairly tenuous, but the evil impulse does seem to be the closest Judean equivalent to Hellenistic philosophers’ complaints about the passions.

Although in principle believers’ desires are dead (Gal. 5:24) as one is in principle dead to sin (2:20; Rom. 6:2–10), in practice one must continue to address these desires when they arise (cf. Rom. 6:2–13; Gal. 5:13–16; 6:1; Col. 3:5), perhaps by reckoning them dead and continuing to embrace one’s new identity in and with Christ (Rom. 6:11). So long as one lives in the flesh (Gal. 2:20), one has amoral impulses that, if unrestrained, would violate God’s law. Human beings have minds that should control such impulses, if they would consistently choose right; but they do not always choose right (Rom. 7:22–25). Fallen humanity cannot eradicate the influence of impulses and the web of preceding individual and corporate immoral choices. In Christ, however, believers are reckoned righteous, having a new Lord. Believers have in Christ a new identity, no longer subject to reckoning their identity by their passions; moreover, they now have divine empowerment to be able to choose rightly (Rom. 8:1–9). Insofar as the believer follows the Spirit, the believer will not be dominated by fleshly impulses.

Paul associates the flesh both with religion by limited human strength (Gal. 3:2–3) and with sinful behavior (5:16–21, 24). Well-informed religion might distinguish right from wrong, but only God’s Spirit transforms a person, and that is God’s gift in the new era ushered in by Christ.

In calling the Galatian believers to walk by the Spirit, Paul does not mean that they have not done so before; they have already received, and God continues to supply, the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 5), so they are to continue walking by the Spirit. They should keep walking by the Spirit and not return to dependence on the flesh (a return that their circumcision at the insistence of Paul’s adversaries would de facto constitute).

In Greek, as opposed to English, a double negative construction is emphatic. Paul uses such a construction in 5:16 (οὐ μή [ou mē]); he does not want anyone to miss the point that living by the Spirit is utterly incompatible with carrying out the the flesh’s desire.

The verb here translated as fulfill is τελέω (teleō), which can be used with keeping the law in Rom. 2:27. It usually refers to completing or carrying out something, here probably with reference to carrying out the flesh’s desire (i.e., referring to acting on temptation, in thought or outwardly, rather than to the temptation itself). Paul uses a cognate verb (ἐπιτελέω [epiteleō]) in Gal. 3:3, showing the absurdity of starting by the Spirit but completing their faith by the flesh (including circumcision).

The verb τελέω (teleō) here is in the subjunctive mood (τελέσητε, telesēte), but prohibitions in the second person in the NT are often in the subjunctive rather than imperative mood, and virtually always when the aorist is used. Thus the NRSV takes the subjunctive negation here as a prohibition: “and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.”

Paul does, however, negate second-person imperatives at times, though not normally in the aorist. More importantly, while the imperative translation is possible, not all negated aorist subjunctives function as prohibitions. The same construction with the same verb appears in one other case in the NT, and there it is a statement rather than a command. Others thus prefer to translate as a consequence: there’s no way you’ll fulfill (as I translate here) or “and thus you will not gratify” (cf. NASB, NIV). The other examples in Paul of the aorist subjunctive following a double negation are all negative assertions rather than commands. Paul’s imperative followed by a consequence in the aorist subjunctive is consistent with some wisdom sayings, such as Sir. 7:1: “Do not do bad things, and what is bad will never overtake you.” In Gal. 5:16, it is the mutual exclusiveness of the Spirit’s way and that of the flesh that explains the connection to verse 17, which carries on the thought.

5:17

17The reason for this is that the flesh desires what’s incompatible with the Spirit, and the Spirit wants what is incompatible with the flesh. These oppose each other, so that you aren’t able to do just whatever things you want.

Because the Spirit’s desire is contrary to that of the flesh (5:17), those who walk by the Spirit will not fulfill the desire of the flesh (5:16). That is, the way to overcome undisciplined fleshly passion is not to focus on the passion in hopes of mastering or suppressing it, but rather to live a life dominated by trusting in God, recognizing one’s new master in place of one’s old one. Knowledge of the law does not automatically transform one’s desires, but the Spirit can do so.

The particular sense of Paul’s ambiguous grammar in 5:17 may be exegetically insoluble, or at least continue to be heavily debated. What should be clear, however, is the verse’s function in the context: it explains why 5:16 is the case—that is, the desires of the flesh and those of the Spirit are incompatible. (Some find even an image of war here, but though there is clearly conflict, none of the language is specifically military.) This is a moral dualism as exclusive as that found anywhere in antiquity.

The Galatians therefore cannot have it both ways; trying to follow both Paul and his rivals, trying to follow both the powerful gift of the Spirit through faith (3:2–5; 4:6) and the way of flesh through circumcision (3:3; 6:8, 12–13), will not work. The incompatible character of these options is delineated in the description of the way of the flesh in 5:19–21 and the way of the Spirit in 5:22–23. (Writers sometimes laid out major points in their theme before developing them.)

Turning to details, the final clause of 5:17 (5:17d) is the most problematic for interpreters. So that you aren’t able can be translated as “for the purpose of preventing you” or as “so as to prevent you, with the result that it prevents you” (not implying intentionality). That is, something (the conflict or the Spirit or the flesh) may seek to prevent you from doing whatever things you want, or it may simply prevent you from doing whatever things you want. Grammar alone does not resolve the question. A probably larger conundrum is the content of whatever things you want, which is related to the question of what prevents you from doing it.

Following are several major views:

Given the Spirit’s exclusion of the flesh’s triumph in 5:16, a majority of commentators today see the exclusion also in 5:17 (as in views 3–5). As in the final view, most also envision the self as willing but the Spirit empowering the self, when it walks in the Spirit, to will rightly. The believer may will but cannot do what she or he wants, but rather ultimately only what the Spirit or the flesh wants; one must choose. With regard to the Spirit hindering bad choices, some scholars parallel here Socrates pointing out that a gracious parent will wisely inhibit many of a child’s desires.

Other ancient thinkers’ teachings illustrate the sort of language that Paul was engaging. Because no one wants to live in error, one philosopher insisted, a bad man is thus one who does not live as he wishes (wishing to do good). Only those who follow reason (Paul would say, God’s Spirit) are truly “free”; “for they alone, having learned to wish for what they ought, live as they wish.” Somewhat closer to Paul’s point, some gentile thinkers even recognized that they needed God’s help to achieve the soul’s victory in the fight between Virtue and Vice.

Trying to straddle both flesh and Spirit can result only in confusion. Many averred that those who were imperfect had conflicting impulses. Ancients depicted negatively this divided self, torn by contrary desires. Philosophers often opposed this divided state to inner tranquility. Others viewed the divided self as a symptom of unresolved allegiance. Some rabbis said that if one follows the good impulse fully, the evil one is taken away, and vice versa; those in between have both.

Echoing the typical form of moral dualism in antiquity, some argue that the opposing forces here are two natures. As noted on 5:16, however, the issue here is not an anthropological dualism, but rather humanity on its own versus God’s Spirit. This is not to deny that believers may have a struggle (although in the gospel’s ideal they should not); but it is not the sort of internal division envisioned in Rom. 7:7–25. That passage envisions not merely conflict but defeat, and it does not mention the role of the Spirit, probably because it depicts life wholly under the law (as in 7:5).

Again, in context what matters most is that Paul lays before the Galatians a choice between the two ways: the Spirit way of the gospel and the flesh way of circumcision. There is no middle way for them to take, or they will continually be pulled in either direction. Only God’s Spirit, not the law, can enable them to overcome the passions of the flesh; they must therefore choose God’s Spirit.

5:18

18But if you’re led by the Spirit, you’re not under the law.

Because the Galatians are believers, Paul believes that they are “led” by the Spirit; therefore they are not under the law (5:18; cf. 4:5–6). “Under the law” recalls Paul’s argument in 3:6–4:31, most explicitly the language of 4:23; 4:4–5, 21. In 4:5, God redeemed us from under the law and made us his children; in 4:6, he gave us the Spirit; we now deal with him directly, by the Spirit, rather than like immature children under slave guardians. The Spirit gives us relationship with God and especially love (5:22), which fulfills the law (5:14). Similarly, as in Rom. 8:14, those who are led by the Spirit are God’s children; in Galatians, Paul has established that God’s children are no longer under the law (Gal. 4:7).

“Leading” is normally language appropriate for a personal actor, fitting some other depictions of God’s Spirit in Paul (cf. Rom. 8:16, 26; 1 Cor. 12:4–6; 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 4:4–6). It also comports well with the image of the believer “walking” (Gal. 5:16); since most movement in Paul’s environment transpired on foot, one can be led while walking.

In both contexts where Paul mentions the Spirit’s leading (Gal. 5:18; Rom. 8:14), this leading “is moral, not vocational.” Believers are “taught by God” how to love one another (1 Thess. 4:9), and being led by the Spirit involves killing the practices of the body (Rom. 8:13–14; cf. Col. 3:5). The idea might find a distant analogy with a Hellenistic Jewish conception of Wisdom guiding one in one’s actions. The Spirit will enable right actions from the heart more than the written law could.

Paul means “controlled” by the Holy Spirit (cf. the similar idea of being “filled” or “pervaded” with the Spirit in Eph. 5:18). As Chrysostom suggested, “The Spirit is meant to have the same power over us as a pilot has over his ship or a charioteer over his horses”; Paul speaks of not just our past baptism but of the Spirit’s continuing work in our lives now. Greeks understood the idea of a spirit “leading” in terms of a “compelling inner force” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:2), an idea applicable here, James Dunn points out, as “a power . . . stronger than human desire” (see Gal. 5:17). Some envision this overwhelming experience as a sort of ecstasy; although this depiction may depend to some extent on one’s definition of ecstasy, Paul probably envisions the Spirit integrated into human experience in more “normal” ways much of the time, both through the mind (Rom. 8:5–7) and through the affective dimension of the believer (1 Cor. 14:14–15).

While Paul in this context is not referring to “guidance for everyday decisions,” one hardly imagines that one can live a life determined by the Spirit as a whole without being open to the Spirit in daily life as well. Positive moral desires and actions are birthed and supported in us by the Spirit. Paul draws partly on the ancient understanding of God’s Spirit that purifies (Ezek. 36:25–27) but is also aware that the Spirit inspires (Rom. 8:15, 26; Gal. 4:6), including in his own life on a daily basis (1 Cor. 14:18). The Spirit here may purify and energize conscience (cf. Rom. 9:1) but is never merely identified with it.

Although Paul’s focus here is moral, his use of the expression led by the Spirit in these contexts probably reflects a particular application of a wider usage in early Christianity, given its appearance elsewhere in the NT and also in the LXX background on which Paul probably draws. Both gentiles and Jews could speak generally of God’s leading in terms of God being with them in life and watching over them. Gentiles also spoke (in other terms) of the need for divine guidance.

Those who prayed the Psalms naturally prayed for God to “lead” them. In Ps. 143:10 (LXX 142:10), the psalmist prays for God’s Spirit to lead him, a text that interpreters have sometimes found echoed here. (Paul certainly knows the psalm; see comment on Gal. 2:16.) While a specific allusion in Gal. 5:18 is uncertain, the Psalms may have informed the broader early Christian usage of which 5:18 is a part. Clearly the pious in the OT would seek God for major decisions, and this dependence on God presumably continues in the era of the Spirit, albeit without access to Urim and Thummim and probably less dependence on lots (Acts 1:26).

Probably the primary OT background for the early Christian use of the phrase, though, is God leading his people in the wilderness, an image directly informing the early Christian usage in Matt. 4:1 and Luke 4:1. God’s “leading” was often mentioned in connection with the exodus and is also associated with the promised new exodus. God’s Spirit was also connected with the leading in the wilderness (Neh. 9:19–20), most explicitly in the prophetic interpretation of the exodus in Isa. 63:11–14, where the Spirit represents God’s presence among his people.

Luke, who emphasizes the Spirit’s role especially in cross-cultural evangelism, notes the Spirit’s direct guidance in this area (Acts 8:29; 10:19; 16:6–7), as well as sometimes working through a communal process (15:28). Like Matthew, he uses the specific terminology of “led by the Spirit” for Jesus, empowered by the Spirit, being directed into the wilderness (probably an echo of the exodus narrative, as noted; Matt. 4:1; Luke 4:1). John speaks of the Spirit revealing truth and leading believers in their relationship with Christ (John 16:13); Jesus’s sheep are those who follow his lead (John 10:4, 27; cf. Rev. 7:17; 14:4). Although Paul might not use John’s vocabulary for such leading in his extant letters, he does believe that the Spirit reveals God’s heart to believers in such ways (Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 2:10–13).

In this context, one who is led by the Spirit inevitably produces the fruit of the Spirit, against which there is no law (Gal. 5:22–23). Against his opponents, who hold that embracing the Torah’s stipulations produces righteousness, Paul concludes that the Spirit active within believers produces a righteousness that makes those formal stipulations superfluous (5:18). By empowering (especially) love (5:22), the Spirit would enable God’s people to fulfill the Torah.

Paul’s portrayal of law as necessary only to restrain sinners and not directly for the intrinsically virtuous draws on an idea widely intelligible in his milieu. But as with “walking” and the Spirit in Gal. 5:16, Paul’s primary background for connecting the law and the Spirit is Ezek. 36–37, especially 36:27: God would cause his people to walk in his commands by putting his Spirit in them.

5:19–21

Paul had already given some basic moral instruction when he had taught among the Galatians in person (5:21). Still, separation from idolatry (and, for some, sexual immorality) would have been painfully difficult in their gentile environment, apart from social support in the Jewish community. Despite this challenge, the Galatian converts had made this definite break (cf. 4:8–9), so Paul perhaps includes many vices that they would recognize as not their own (5:19–20a) before turning to social vices that continued to characterize them (5:20–21; cf. Paul’s line of argument in Rom. 1:18–32).

Paul’s depiction of the depravity of the flesh’s works fits his larger argument here. The law’s stipulations do warn against behaviors such as appear in 5:19–21 (though Paul engages in no specific exegesis of the law here); but they do not produce the fruit of righteousness found in 5:22–23. Paul associates his opponents’ emphasis on circumcision and outward compliance with the flesh (3:3; 4:29; 6:12–13) and has so far consistently associated works with the law (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; though this association is qualified in 6:4, 10). In two verses where he has associated works with the law, he has directly noted that his hearers had received God’s own Spirit, obviating any need to depend on the flesh (3:2, 5). Paul now shows why the flesh on its own cannot fulfill God’s law (cf. Rom. 8:3, 7–8): left to itself, its character leads to sin.

Virtue and vice lists often appear together, as here (5:19–23). Their proximity invites an overall contrast between the flesh’s works and the Spirit’s fruit (5:22–23). At the end of both lists is a final statement that includes “such things” (5:21, 23 NRSV), binding the two lists together. (This summarizing term or a synonym is also appropriate to the form; it appears also in other moral lists.) Those who follow the flesh, such as Paul’s adversaries want the Galatians to do, won’t inherit God’s kingdom (5:21), but as far as the law is concerned, those who bear the fruit of the Spirit will not violate the spirit of the law (5:23).

Jewish sources include vice lists, though they became especially prevalent among Stoics and other philosophers, as well as rhetoricians. Some lists include only four elements, but Philo once lists over one hundred. Besides Gal. 5:19–21, Paul employs them frequently elsewhere (Rom. 1:29–31; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Eph. 5:3–5; Col. 3:5, 8). He often uses them for homiletical damnation, although sometimes qualifying this damnation in the context (1 Cor. 6:11). Against Stoic ideology, not all offenses were necessarily equal (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1), but listing them together reinforced the heinousness of the vices more often excused.

Vice lists were usually only loosely connected with the audience’s setting. Moreover, Paul offers only samples of the flesh’s works, as such things (5:21) makes explicit. Nevertheless, Paul’s arrangement is suggestive: sexual sins (5:19), the worship of images and sorcery (5:20), then eight relational sins (5:20–21a), and then drunkenness and uninhibited partying (5:21). Under the law, sexual sins (Lev. 20:10–16; Deut. 22:21–26), image-worship (Deut. 13:5–11), and sorcery (Exod. 22:18) were capital offenses, as was regular and incorrigible drunkenness (Deut. 21:20). Jewish people often associated image-worship and sexual immorality with gentiles, including when listing vices, and with some good reason.

Yet in the midst of such heinous offenses Paul includes instances of enmity, strife, jealousy, instances of anger, selfish ambition, factional divisions, instances of sectarianism, occasions of envy (Gal. 5:20–21a). These sins were not unknown among Jewish people as well. Such relational sins—together over half the list—appear at a greater proportion than in most of his other vice lists (Rom. 1:29–30; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9–10; Col. 3:5; but cf. Col. 3:8), although many of his other lists do include strife, jealousy, anger, and the like. Much of the positive fruit listed in 5:22–23 also addresses relationships. It seems likely that Paul knew of strife as a problem in the Galatian congregations (Gal. 5:13, 15, 26), though of course it was not limited to them (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:12–13; Phil. 4:2–3). Social vices do appear in Jewish and Christian lists more frequently than in typical gentile ones. Such vices violate love of neighbor (cf. Gal. 5:13–14). Paul apparently believes that most humanward prohibitions in the Torah would prove unnecessary if relationships became ideal at a more fundamental level.

Rhetorically, Paul’s first five offenses end in Greek with -ια or -εια (-ia or -eia); after one plural noun (ἔχθραι, echthrai, “instances of enmity”) ending in -αι (-ai) he includes two nouns (ἔρις, ζῆλος, eris, zēlos, “strife,” “jealousy”) ending in -ς (-s); the rest are plural nouns ending in either -οι or -αι (-oi or -ai), with the exception of “instances of sectarianism” (αἱρέσεις, haireseis; also plural in Greek here, but ending in -εις [-eis]). Greek listeners found such consistencies of sound appealing. This euphony also provides some balance for the list of the fruit of the Spirit in 5:22–23; each of the nine nouns there is feminine and they end in the following pattern: -η, -α, -η, -ια, -ης, -η, -ις, -ης, -εια (-ē, -a, -ē, -ia, -ēs, -ē, -is, -ēs, -eia): three instances of -ς (-s), three of -η (-ē), and three of -α (-a).

5:19

19Now the flesh’s works are obvious. They are sexual immorality, impurity, lack of self-restraint,

Turning to the list’s particulars: Paul’s vice lists usually include and sometimes highlight sexual sin. This is probably partly because it was common among gentile men and partly because, unlike some other sins (cf. Col. 3:8 in light of 3:5), it was toward the top of his (like other Jewish people’s) list of particularly severe sins (cf. Lev. 18:1–30; 20:10–21; 1 Cor. 6:18–19). Such acts of exploitation of others’ sexuality are far from true love (cf. Gal. 5:14, 22).

Paul uses sexual immorality (πορνεία, porneia) generally to refer to sexual sin, including voluntary incest (1 Cor. 5:1), prostitution (1 Cor. 6:13, 18; 7:2), adultery (1 Thess. 4:3), and probably any sort of sexual offense (2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5). Paul can use impurity (ἀκαθαρσία, akatharsia), which conventionally addressed ritual purity, to refer to sin more generally (Rom. 6:19; perhaps 1 Thess. 2:3), but the context in some of his other passages suggests that Paul applies it particularly to sexual sins (Rom. 1:24; 2 Cor. 12:21; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:7; probably Eph. 4:19; 5:3). Lack of self-restraint (ἀσέλγεια, aselgeia) pertains to a shameless lack of self-restraint or even of consideration of conventional social boundaries. Its early Christian contexts sometimes suggest sexual looseness (its pairing in the Greek text of Rom. 13:13; cf. 2 Cor. 12:21), and the context here might suggest that it continues or at least includes the sexual emphasis of the previous two offenses.

5:20–21

20–21the worship of images, sorcery, instances of enmity, strife, jealousy, instances of anger, selfish ambition, factional divisions, instances of sectarianism, occasions of envy, drunkenness, uninhibited partying, and other things like these. I’m warning you about such things, just as I already warned you before: those who practice these sins won’t inherit God’s kingdom.

For the nature of local worship of images in Galatia, see comment on 4:8. Image-worship or “idolatry” obviously would not appear on gentile vice lists; it was a particularly Jewish way of framing the veneration of deity-images (e.g., Exod. 20:4; Lev. 19:4) and by this period specifically characterized gentiles. Paul’s term translated as sorcery here (φαρμακεία, pharmakeia) is also associated with paganism, such as Pharaoh’s magicians. (It could also apply to drugging for poison or potions, but the LXX uses seem more direct in their effects.) It could relate to the evil eye (see Gal. 3:1 and comment there) and may contrast with the work of the Spirit (5:22). Usually sorcerers conducted such behavior in private; it was punishable by the state.

Enmity and strife characterized gentile cities and the partisan divides sown by jealousy and ambition. Moralists deemed it honorable to control one’s anger; losing one’s temper was sometimes even considered temporary insanity. Stoics categorized different kinds of anger and insisted that a wise person would avoid it. Other gentile philosophers and moralists also warned against anger, as did Jewish teachers. Diaspora Jews sometimes proposed reason’s self-control as the antidote for anger. Sectarianism reflects a Greek term (αἵρεσις, hairesis) that sometimes applied to various sects or to factionalism.

Jealousy (5:20) and envy (5:21a) were common in the agonistic, honor/shame society of ancient Mediterranean cities. Philosophers and moralists often addressed the issue of envy, even in entire essays. Both gentile and Jewish authors often condemned envy.

Drunken banquets (5:21) were common in Greek and Roman cities, often to the dismay of Diaspora Jews. Whether for festivals or wedding banquets or other gatherings, many gentiles partied all night in drunkenness, revels, and debauchery: “Men keep vigil by night to indulge their insatiable lust.” Some philosophers opposed drunkenness, and Jewish teachers condemned it frequently. Writers often associated excess drinking with shameful loss of control; when drunk, people commit offenses that they would not commit when sober, not least embarrassing behavior at banquets. Drunkenness’s invitation to sexual license earned it warnings in Jewish sources. Drunkenness often led to violence, sometimes to both violence and sexual license, and could even lead to capital offenses such as blasphemy.

The final vice, uninhibited partying, seems closely connected with its predecessor. Originally associated with a festal procession honoring the wine deity Dionysus, the term (κῶμος, kōmos) remains associated with pagan religion in the LXX. In NT vice lists (here in 5:21; Rom. 13:13; 1 Pet. 4:3) it probably maintains its popular negative sense of excessive feasting or partying, characteristic of gentile culture (1 Pet. 4:3).

That Paul had told the Galatians these matters before (5:21) indicates that, despite his dependence on the Spirit to teach them (5:16, 18, 22; cf. 1 Thess. 4:9), Paul also gave them ethical instructions during his time with them, as in other congregations. Some of this may reflect traditions concerning Jesus’s own teachings (cf. Rom. 8:14; 12:14, 17–18; 13:2, 7–10; 1 Cor. 7:10–11; 9:13; 11:23–26; 1 Thess. 2:16; 4:2, 15–17). Luke reports that Paul had previously exhorted his converts in this region to persevere (Acts 13:43; 14:22), and such exhortation would probably include some moral instruction.

Noting that Paul warned them before also allows him to prepare for the severe statement that follows: those who practice these sins won’t inherit God’s kingdom. They cannot straddle for long both the way of the Spirit and the way of the flesh (5:16); the way of the flesh, whether manifest in these particularly detested outward vices or not, will inevitably lead them to death (cf. Rom. 8:13). “While good deeds in themselves do not admit one to the kingdom,” F. F. Bruce notes, “evil deeds of the type mentioned certainly exclude one.”

For the language of “inheriting” the future kingdom and related blessings, see comment on Gal. 3:18; this language continues the theme of Abraham’s true children being heirs of the promise (3:18, 29; 4:7, 30). Paul sometimes speaks of the kingdom as present (Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 1:13; 4:11; cf. 1 Cor. 15:25) but somewhat more often of the kingdom as future (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Thess. 1:5; cf. Rom. 5:17), usually in sayings about who will not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). Because talk about a “kingdom” was easily misrepresented (cf. Acts 17:7), Paul for the present speaks more often about the Spirit and power (cf. Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20).

5:22–23

22–23But the Spirit’s fruit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, thoughtfulness, goodness, dependability, considerateness, and self-control. There’s no law against qualities like these.

Paul designs his list of virtues in an aesthetically pleasing way. Matching the verbal euphony in his foregoing vice list (and as mentioned there), in Greek the virtues in Paul’s list have the following endings: -η, -α, -η, -ια, -ης, -η, -ις, -ης, -εια (-ē, -a, -ē, -ia, -ēs, -ē, -is, -ēs, -eia)—three instances of -ς (-s), three of -η (-ē), and three of -α (-a).

Virtue lists were quite common in antiquity, including among philosophers and rhetoricians. (On virtue and vice lists appearing together, so providing contrast, and on the rhetorical character of the traits chosen for the set here, see comment on 5:19–21.) What were virtues? Stoics regarded virtues as continuous dispositions; they might not be active at every moment but would be activated when appropriate. Although some of Paul’s list may relate to what we can call mental attitudes, this does not describe every trait in the list. The list consists only of samples (hence qualities like these in 5:23, wording in Greek parallel to things like these in 5:21), as comparison with other Pauline lists illustrates (e.g., Rom. 14:17; 2 Cor. 6:6; Eph. 4:2; 5:9; Col. 1:10; 3:12), though they are relevant to matters at hand (cf. the Spirit that enables you to show considerateness in Gal. 6:1). Against the communal strife noted in 5:15, 20–21, most of the virtues here are communal.

The fruit of the Spirit is the character of the Spirit of God’s Son living in us (4:6; cf. 1 Thess. 4:8), God’s image in his children. In what appears to be a wider early Christian understanding, the fruit (related here to the image of sowing, 6:7–9) stems from divine “seed” implanted (1 Pet. 1:23; 1 John 3:9). (Some parallel language exists. In the agrarian environment of the ancient Mediterranean world, others offered some images that were partly but not fully analogous. Figurative fruit images were not uncommon.) Those born from the Spirit (Gal. 4:29) will share the divine nature (morally) just as any offspring bears the genetic character of its parent.

Other Pauline texts employ “fruit” in ways similar to this passage, albeit with less elaboration (Eph. 5:9; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10). This image probably stems from traditions of Jesus’s sayings (Matt. 7:16–20 // Luke 6:43–44; Matt. 12:33; Luke 13:6–9; John 15:2–8, 16), which in turn may reflect earlier biblical usage.

Paul’s choice of the title “fruit” in Gal. 5:22 contrasts with his reference to “works” in 5:19: fruit proceeds naturally from an organism’s character (cf. Matt. 7:17–19 // Luke 6:43–44). In a similar way, Seneca contends, “good does not spring from evil, any more than figs grow from olive-trees. Things which grow correspond to their seed.” Similarly, an apocalyptic writer noted, a mere grain of evil seed can produce a great harvest of ungodliness. Of course, the Spirit’s fruit in believers does not imply passivity. A believer should cooperate with what the Spirit births (as in Phil. 2:12–13); but we do not birth it ourselves. God’s Spirit working in believers produces this new character (see Gal. 4:6–7, 29; cf. John 15:4); the fruit grows as believers respond to the Spirit’s moral direction (Gal. 5:16–18).

Some gentile thinkers also envisioned the indwelling of deity and acknowledged that it was the deity that made them more godlike in virtue. Closer to Paul’s language here, the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of God’s Spirit inspiring virtues, including some of those listed here. In the larger context of Gal. 5:16, 18, the largest literary influence theologically probably remains Ezek. 36:27.

Philosophic discussions of ancient ethics include love, gentleness, and self-control. Paul does not specifically distinguish which elements of fruit are virtues and which are emotions; he probably regards all as virtues and at least some (not least joy) as expressing an emotional component.

Not surprisingly, love (ἀγάπη, agapē) appears first in Paul’s list. Although Paul perhaps uses the singular fruit (καρπός [karpos]) to speak of just one virtue from which others emerged, Paul almost always employs the singular form of this noun, suggesting that this could be a stylistic matter. Nevertheless, love is the key and probably foundational virtue here, as the context demonstrates. There is no law against love (5:23), since love fulfills the law (5:14). Saving faith is expressed through love (5:6), which includes mutual service (5:13). (See further comment on love at 5:6, 14.) Love for one another is associated with God’s Spirit also in Rom. 15:30; Col. 1:8 (cf. 2 Cor. 6:6; Phil. 2:1; 2 Tim. 1:7), as is experiencing God’s love for us in Rom. 5:5 (in the context of 5:5–8).

Joy (χαρά, chara) would not appear in most ancient virtue lists, although religious celebrations were typically joyful, both among gentiles and Jews. The biblical association of joy with worship probably supplies one major venue for the joy expressed here; God’s work should be celebrated (Gal. 4:27; cf. Rom. 15:10).

Despite its absence in typical ancient lists of virtues, joy seems distinctively pervasive in Paul, who some forty times uses χαρά (chara) or χαίρω (chairō). That the Spirit produces joy (e.g., Rom. 14:17; 15:13), right from conversion (1 Thess. 1:6), fits Paul’s thinking elsewhere. Luke reports that joy accompanied the experience of the Spirit in this region, perhaps in a special way (Acts 13:52; cf. 13:48). For Paul, this joy depends not on circumstances but on the Spirit, and so it may coexist with other feelings at times. Like self-control, celebration in the Spirit may contrast with the sort of worldly partying noted in the preceding vice list (Gal. 5:19, 21; cf. Eph. 5:18–20).

Paul’s converts are clearly not Stoics, who marginalized emotion, especially of the negative sort. Many philosophers valued joy, although ancient philosophy’s primary objective was instead generally “happiness” (εὐδαιμονία, eudaimonia). This latter Greek term appealed to Hellenistic Jews and to some early Christians, yet it never appears in the NT. Most philosophers agreed that reason should control emotion, while rejecting the Stoic ideal of extinguishing negative emotion. Even Stoics, however, allowed cheerful and calm satisfaction with the will of God. True joy, they felt, comes not from externals subject to Fortune but from philosophy, which yields a tranquil mind. (Jewish thinkers were more apt to associate it with wisdom, Torah, and righteous living.) Paul finds it to be an outflow of God’s Spirit active in the believer’s life.

The Spirit’s fruit also includes peace (εἰρήνη, eirēnē). Some interpreters understand this to mean or include inner tranquility, which could oppose the sort of conflict that some find in Gal. 5:17. Although not usually using Paul’s terminology here, most ancient Mediterranean philosophies valued the achievement of peace and tranquility. They believed that they achieved this through understanding truth and avoiding ignorance. Some Diaspora Jews echoed this objective. For Philo, peace and joy accompany virtue.

Elsewhere in his letters, however, Paul most often uses peace to designate nonhostility or reconciliation and unity. (His epistolary greetings may be an exception, since they follow a conventional Jewish form of wishing someone well.) Augustine, therefore, understood the term here relationally. This understanding better fits the usual semantic range of Paul’s term translated as “peace” (εἰρήνη) as well as the context: peace naturally contrasts with “biting and devouring” one another (Gal. 5:15) and with eight of the works of the flesh in 5:20–21.

Forbearance here (also NIV; “patience” in NRSV, NASB, ESV) translates the Greek term μακροθυμία (makrothumia), which involves patient, calm endurance, whether tested through waiting or through others’ provocation. This virtue often appears in Pauline literature, both for God or Christ (Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Tim. 1:16) and ordinary humans (Col. 1:11; 2 Tim. 4:2), especially in virtue lists (2 Cor. 6:6; Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 3:10).

The Greek term translated as thoughtfulness (χρηστότης, chrēstotēs) is a fairly generic term for “goodness,” often including kindness or generosity (BDAG). It applies in Pauline literature to God (Rom. 2:4; 11:22; Eph. 2:7; Titus 3:4) and humans (negatively, Rom. 3:12), especially in virtue lists as here (2 Cor. 6:6; Col. 3:12). Stoics, for whom it was a key element of virtue, define it in connection with justice or as the skill of sharing and giving. Hellenistic Judaism emphasized this virtue.

The Greek term translated as goodness (ἀγαθοσύνη, agathosunē) is an even more generic term for what is ethically good, displaying especially interest in others’ welfare (BDAG). Paul occasionally uses it elsewhere (Rom. 15:14; 2 Thess. 1:11); it is the one element of Paul’s list of fruit here that recurs in the list of fruit in Eph. 5:9.

Faithfulness here translates the same Greek term translated as faith elsewhere in Galatians (πίστις, pistis). The Greek term can mean either one, since faithfulness, as trustworthiness, is often the flip side of faith, trust. Most commentators concur with the translation “faithfulness” here. This is partly because these are expressions of the divine character within us, by the Spirit; God’s character is faithful. Some also note that the characteristics in the list are primarily directed toward other human beings, although it should be pointed out that some of them, such as love and joy, are also appropriate toward God (cf. Mark 12:30; Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 2:9; 8:3; Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10). This is the consensus not only of commentators but also the major translations. Still, given the use of this same Greek word elsewhere in Galatians, one wonders whether it might not involve growing trust in God, responding to the continuing supply of the Spirit that in turn responds to saving faith (Gal. 3:2, 5).

Paul’s list continues in 5:23. The Spirit also produces considerateness (also translatable as “gentleness,” “meekness,” or “humility”); the Dead Sea Scrolls similarly attribute the analogous Hebrew activity to the divine Spirit. Although a standard virtue in Jewish sources, it was a virtue also in Greek sources, applicable even to leaders, understood not as weakness but rather as mercy or compassion.

The climax (or at least conclusion) of the Spirit’s fruit is self-control (ἐγκράτεια, enkrateia), which effectively challenges most of the vices listed in 5:19–21. The Greek term denotes restraining the passions or baser emotions. Of all the virtues in the list, this was probably the one most often emphasized as a virtue in the Galatians’ Hellenistic environment, at least among the highly educated. Orators spoke of it, but it especially was a focus of philosophers. It could apply to moderation in matters such as eating and sleep, or controlling one’s tongue. Diaspora Jewish works likewise valued it.

It is self-evident, at least among those who shared the values of Paul’s milieu (and in general ours), that there’s no law against qualities like these (Gal. 5:23). The issue of how to support biblical ethics without subjecting gentiles to the law, already hinted at earlier (2:16–21), is a major focus in 5:13–6:10, and 5:23 reiterates this emphasis.

Love fulfills the law (5:14), and those bearing the fruit of the Spirit will love (5:22). Ezekiel promised that God’s people would walk in his commandments when he put his Spirit in them; Paul emphasizes that those who walk by the Spirit, following the Spirit’s leading, do not need to be under the law (5:18), because the Spirit combats the lusts that the law was intended to constrain (5:16–24). Serving one another in love (5:13–14, following Jesus’s teaching) thus fulfills the law of Christ (6:2). To the extent that the law was meant to restrain sin (cf. 3:23–24), it would no longer be necessary for those who (speaking in ideal terms) had been made so good that they would not sin anyway.

Although gentiles thought of laws other than the law of Moses, Paul’s language would be intelligible to them. Aristotle, for example, considered it superfluous for laws to regulate virtuous persons, since such persons were a law for themselves. Another philosopher contended that a soul that is virtuous “is virtue itself.” Unwritten laws are more immutable than written ones, some said; those with the law within achieve virtue without written laws; written laws would be unnecessary if everyone were good. Philosophy persuades people to follow virtue and so is superior to law that must compel virtue. Some orators also employed this motif. A gentile philosopher could also connect a virtue list with divine law.

5:24

24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

In 5:24, Paul highlights again the incompatibility of being ruled by the flesh and ruled by Christ or the Spirit. Trying to achieve right behavior by the law is superfluous for those who belong to Christ (lit., “the ones of Christ”). Those who walk by his Spirit will not fulfill the desires of the flesh (5:16), because in Christ the flesh as our identity is already crucified. Because Christ has been crucified, those whose identity is in him have also been crucified in him, as Paul was (2:20).

Crucifixion was brutal, so that even its metaphoric uses in antiquity were normally negative. Those identified with Christ, however, boast in the cross, ready to be persecuted for it, like Paul rather than his rivals (6:12, 14–15).

Stoics sought to extirpate the passions, in contrast to most other philosophers, who sought merely to moderate them. This was also a widespread understanding of Paul before the Reformation, though only a few monks and saints were thought to achieve it. When Paul speaks of passions and desires crucified with Christ (Gal. 5:24; cf. 2:20; 6:14; Rom. 6:3–7), however, the evil “desire” that he has in mind is not negative emotion per se (in contrast to Stoic concern with “passion”), but rather the desire already specified as forbidden in the Torah—namely, desiring what belongs to someone else (cf. Rom. 7:7, citing Exod. 20:17). Such desire is incompatible with the law of love (Gal. 5:13–15).

5:25

25Since we have life by the Spirit, let’s also follow the Spirit’s footprints.

In 5:25–6:10, Paul’s discourse becomes more hortatory. In 5:25, he begins such exhortations by building on an indicative, in Greek “set out in chiastic order to emphasize the centrality of the Spirit”: “Since we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us be guided.” “If God’s Spirit lives in us,” Calvin paraphrased, “let Him govern all our actions.”

As Paul lives by faith because he has been crucified with Christ (2:19–20), so also those who belong to Christ (5:24–25). Have life by the Spirit refers to the eternal life, the life of the coming age, generated by the Spirit (6:8). This life echoes Paul’s discussion in 3:11–12: this life is by trusting God (Hab. 2:4; Gal. 3:11) rather than by doing the law (Lev. 18:5; Gal. 3:12). Living by the Spirit is equivalent to Christ living in and through believers (2:20) and thus living to God (2:19).

If we have life by the Spirit, it is only reasonable that we should act consistently with that new life (life from God, Eph. 4:18; cf. Gal. 2:20). The exhortation is needed, however, precisely because what is reasonable can still be countered by unreasonable, often misinformed/deceived, choices. Even people of the Spirit must beware of stumbling, as becomes explicit in Gal. 6:1.

In 5:16, Paul spoke of “walking” by the Spirit; here he extends the metaphor further with a less common term. Follow the . . . footprints (5:25) translates the verb στοιχέω (stoicheō), which has to do with walking in order (cf. “walk” in KJV, ASV, NASB, WEB; “keep in step” in NIV, ESV; “be guided” in NRSV). Paul uses the phrase in this way in Rom. 4:12, for walking in the footprints of Abraham. Paul and 1 Peter use the same noun as in Rom. 4:12, “steps” (ἴχνος, ichnos) for walking consistently with another person (2 Cor. 12:18; 1 Pet. 2:21). In 1 Peter, one follows in Christ’s steps; here, one follows in those of the Spirit.

Most scholars think that the verb στοιχέω means more than “walk” in a generic way, since it originally meant “stand in line” or “be aligned with,” relevant for a standard of conduct (as perhaps in Gal. 6:16). Walking consistently with a standard could fit a different walking metaphor in 2:14, where some weren’t walking the straight way [ὀρθοποδέω, orthopodeō] of the truth of the gospel. Στοιχέω here may thus mean something like “walk lined up with the Spirit’s steps,” or “march in line following the Spirit as the leader,” or “Let us make a habit of following the Spirit.” Thus believers not only “walk” by the Spirit but also are “led” by the Spirit by walking in the Spirit’s path.

Because of the idea of alignment (related to the cognate verb συστοιχέω [sustoicheō] in 4:25), John Barclay has also suggested that 5:25 may function as a heading, showing that the following exhortations “spell out more exactly what it means to ‘walk in the Spirit.’” Some have even suggested a contrast with the cognate noun in 4:3, 9: once regimented by the στοιχεῖα (stoicheia), now believers follows the steps of the Spirit. This connection with 4:3, 9 is certainly conceivable; half of Paul’s use of στοιχε- (stoiche-) words are in Galatians, so the repetition could be deliberate. Nevertheless, the connection ultimately seems questionable: the terms appear too far apart in Galatians to be a wordplay, and the στοιχεῖα of 4:3, 9 belong to a different semantic domain.

The Ways of Christ’s Law (5:26–6:10)

5:26

26Let’s not become conceited, challenging or envying one another.

Commentators usually treat 5:26 as part of 5:24–26 rather than as part of 6:1–10. Scholars can debate Paul’s outlines partly because Paul sometimes transitions from one point to another and does not usually write with a hierarchical outline in mind. Nevertheless, 5:26 is, like what follows, hortatory material more specific in application than the general idea of 5:14, 16–25. Like 6:1–6, 5:26 is an example of the Spirit-filled life. In 5:26–6:10, Paul illustrates somewhat more concretely the behavior that the preceding paragraph (5:16–25) summarizes more abstractly. What do love, patience, kindness, and so forth look like in practice? Interestingly, such behavior does not look like those adhering to, boasting in, and judging others by a rigid code (6:1–3).

Paul has already established that the law does not circumscribe, but gives merely examples of, righteous behavior, which is fully lived out by the Spirit (5:16–26). Paul now gives examples of righteous, “spiritual” (6:1) behaviors that are not covered by the written law but that express ultimate righteousness (6:2). In effect, 6:1–6 offers examples of what a Spirit-led, fruit-of-the-Spirit lifestyle (5:16–25) looks like in somewhat more concrete terms, perhaps with some specific issues among the Galatian believers in mind. Sowing to the flesh in 6:8 thus refers to behavior such as the works of the flesh listed in 5:19–21, whereas sowing to the Spirit refers to behavior such as the Spirit’s fruit in 5:22–23 and 6:1–6. (Paul presumably designed the images of fruit and sowing to cohere; the ultimate fruit in 6:8 is eternal life, as in the Greek text of Rom. 6:22.) Paul then calls for perseverance (6:9) and summarizes ethics in terms of doing what is good (6:9–10).

Pride, competition, and envy (5:26) fit the urban Mediterranean honor system and revisit the probably pressing local issues echoed in 5:13, 15, and the central eight vices of 5:20–21. They also address a potential danger of the Spirit-filled life: looking down on others who fail (6:1). Whether one boasts because of one’s supposed superiority or envies another’s supposed superiority, one follows worldly criteria of evaluation. In Christ, all believers must be servants (5:13; 6:2).

6:1

1Brothers and sisters, you who are people of the Spirit should restore anybody caught unawares in a transgression. Do so depending on the Spirit that enables you to show considerateness, while taking heed to yourself, so that you won’t be tested too.

Love means that, as people of the Spirit, we dare not look down on others who have failed. Instead we bear their burdens by helping them back up (6:1–2). We do not become secure in our identity by comparing ourselves with others who fall; we become secure by walking with the Lord for ourselves (6:3–4). We try to help everybody, especially our brothers and sisters, including those who help us understand the Bible (6:9–10).

Under the law of Moses, those found in transgressions would be punished. The law of Christ does not do away with the need for church discipline (note Paul’s possibly urging the expulsion of false teachers in 4:30; 5:9; cf. reluctant discipline in 1 Cor. 4:21; 5:5–7; 2 Cor. 12:20–13:2), but we must restore the fallen by the Spirit whose fruit is gentleness (cf. Gal. 5:22). We cannot compare ourselves favorably (cf. 2 Cor. 10:12, 17) with the fallen in order to justify ourselves, since temptation could come our way as well. (Paul similarly warns about this danger in 1 Cor. 10:12–13, although recognizing that believers must lay hold of God’s grace and resist temptation.) We are people of the Spirit, but the completion of that Spirit-enlivened actuality remains for Christ’s return (Gal. 5:5; 1 Cor. 15:44–46).

Commentators sometimes cite at Gal. 6:1 the Greek proverb “Know yourself,” one of the most widely cited maxims in Greek antiquity. There is no lexical connection, but it at least serves to illustrate that some gentile hearers would have been familiar with Paul’s principle, since to “know yourself” originally meant to recognize one’s limitations. Plutarch, addressing those who want to censure others, admonishes his audience to “know themselves”—that is, search themselves first. Likewise, an Epicurean warns that a wise person should not get angry when critiquing his students, noting, “For how is he going to hate the one who errs, . . . when he knows that he himself is not perfect?” In some respects the Greek proverb about self-evaluation may be more relevant at Gal. 6:3 (see comment there).

The NRSV rightly interprets οἱ πνευματικοί (hoi pneumatikoi) as “you who have received the Spirit” (6:1). Interpretations of the phrase vary; some think that Paul addresses the more spiritually mature members. Given the rest of the letter, however, clearly Paul addresses the Galatian believing community as a whole, as most commentators concur. They have been born from the Spirit (4:29), have received the Spirit (3:2, 5), and insofar as they walk after the Spirit’s direction (5:16, 18, 25), they will bear the Spirit’s fruit. After all this emphasis on them receiving the Spirit versus the law, Paul would hardly exalt one Christian group above another at the very point of urging them by the Spirit not to look down on other believers! You who are people of the Spirit, then, refers to the same group that Paul here and elsewhere addresses as “brothers and sisters.”

As people of the Spirit labor to restore someone, they should do so depending on the Spirit that enables [them] to show considerateness (lit., “by the Spirit of considerateness”), which in this context surely means, “by the Spirit whose fruit includes considerateness” (cf. 5:22). While it is true that the Greek term translated as “spirit” can refer to an attitude, “considerateness” here evokes the same term in 5:22, where it is clearly the work of God’s Spirit, which also dominates the context (5:16, 18, 25). Jewish sources had long described the Spirit of God in terms of characteristics generated by the Spirit, such as the “Spirit of wisdom” or “Spirit of understanding,” so it makes sense here to interpret a spirit of considerateness as the divine Spirit that inspires considerateness.

Anybody caught unawares in a transgression can refer to any of the sorts of sins listed in 5:19–21, but the word transgression is significant. Transgression may imply violation of God’s law; those who walk in the Spirit will fulfill the law’s purposes (5:18, 23), but sometimes someone in the believing community will fail. This must be firmly addressed, both for the sake of the transgressor (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5b) and for the sake of the church’s public testimony (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1b; 6:1, 6). But it must be addressed in love, as Christ addressed failings among his disciples.

Some stress the root connection of transgression (παράπτωμα, paraptōma) with the Greek terminology for “falling,” which in turn would connect with the inadvertent character of the sin in 6:1 and also with the image of walking in 5:16, 25. Although the verbal connection seems tenuous and other terms for “stumbling” would have communicated this connection better, Paul does sometimes conjoin this term with the image of falling (Rom. 11:11–12). While the connection remains possible, it does not appear clear enough to warrant confidence that the Galatians would have made the connection or that Paul would have expected them to do so.

The word translated as caught unawares (προλαμβάνω, prolambanō) in 6:1 may mean “overtaken by surprise.” That is, it might refer to a sin that was not premeditated, one committed, perhaps, in the passion of the moment before the opportunity to reflect. It was thus inadvertent on the part of one who on the whole is devoted to the new life in Christ. (Paul may prefer not to entertain here the idea of a willfully sinning Christian, though the behavior of some Corinthian Christians left him no choice in that correspondence.) One might compare the difference between inadvertent and deliberate sins in OT (Num. 15:22–31). This was not, then, sin as premeditated rebellion against God. Continuous sins might require more firmness; more public sins would be addressed more publicly if prior warnings failed (cf. 1 Cor. 5:4–7; 2 Cor. 12:20–13:2; 1 Tim. 5:20).

The purpose, in any case, is ensuring the welfare of the person being corrected; believers should restore the transgressor in this situation. Paul’s audience could respect this counsel as well as have some understanding of what it might entail; restoration constituted an important practice in ancient moral philosophy.

Paul uses this term taking heed (σκοπέω, skopeō) without a specialized meaning. What he warns about, however, merits more comment. One who corrects another must avoid the danger of becoming “conceited” (5:26). Some suggest that this is the very “temptation” that Paul addresses here, but it may refer to temptation involving any sort of unexpected sin like that of the person needing correction. Temptation itself does not guarantee that sin will result, but it is foolish to pridefully welcome temptation (1 Cor. 10:12; cf. Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4). Paul viewed Satan as an active tempter (1 Cor. 7:5; 1 Thess. 3:5) but believed that God provided ways to persevere in temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).

Paul was not the only moralist to recognize that those who criticize others should also look to themselves (cf. Rom. 2:1). “We are all wise in giving advice,” Euripides remarks, “but we don’t realise it when we ourselves go wrong.” “Practice nothing in your deeds for which you condemn others in your words,” warned Isocrates. A Hellenistic Jewish work offers as a solution to a leader’s pride the reminder that one is but human. One rabbi warned that though reproof was a religious duty, it might be better to abstain lest one forfeit humility by seeming to make oneself superior to another. “There is no surer test of the spiritual person,” commented Augustine on Gal. 6:1, “than his treatment of another’s sin.” All who recognize their own need of grace must show grace to others. Though Paul’s righteous Lord needed no mercy, he embraced sinners rather than those who supposed that they needed no repentance (2 Cor. 5:21).

A CLOSER LOOK: CORRECTION IN ANTIQUITY

Those influenced by Greek culture often appreciated bold and blunt reproof when it demonstrated independence of spirit shown to powerful people. Unbridled frankness, however, could generate anger unnecessarily. Greek moral discourse valued giving and receiving reproof appropriately. Some urged that it was best to give reproof, at least toward those of higher rank, gently or in private.

Jewish wisdom tradition emphasized the importance of giving and receiving correction. The Dead Sea Scrolls emphasize reproof and apparently include records of rebukes for offenses such as anger and pride. As in Matt. 18:15–17, the sequence of reproof among Qumran sectarians is to first be private, then in front of witnesses, and only afterward, if still needed, before the assembly. Such reproof must be humble and without anger. Josephus adds the principle of private correction to an account in the Pentateuch that was less specific.

Later rabbis emphasized proper giving and receiving of reproof and that warning must always precede punishment. They urged that reproof be private; publicly shaming another merited even exclusion from life to come. Public admonition, such as appears in Gal. 2:11–14, was appropriate only in the most dramatic situations. Recognizing human nature, one early Christian commentator on this passage warned that it was important to correct with kindness so the person being reproved would not pull away and become harder to reach.

6:2

2Carry one another’s burdens. This is how you’ll fulfill the law of Christ.

Bearing one another’s burdens may continue the slavery image dominant earlier in Galatians. Through love we serve one another (5:13); since we are no longer slaves, we should no longer treat one another as such. If practiced fully, this principle would have dramatic social implications (cf. Eph. 6:9). Certainly the ideal of bearing others’ burdens would not appeal to persons of status.

How does the principle function specifically in this context? Some have suggested a primarily financial burden, especially in view of Gal. 6:6. While many scholars allow that the principle includes financial help, however, few are persuaded that that point is the primary focus in this passage. Granted, many terms in 6:1–5 have attested financial uses, but that is not their dominant sense. Galatians 6:6 may function as reciprocity, but not in kind (i.e., repaying financial help).

In this particular context, bearing one another’s burdens especially means helping to restore those who are tempted or fallen (6:1), rather than boasting in one’s superiority, since anyone may be tempted (6:1) and none of us is anything in ourselves (6:3). Each of us will be judged for our own work, rather than by comparison with our neighbor (6:4–5). It is never safe, then, to assume that we are righteous because we are “doing better” than some or many others. Of course, as in the financial interpretation, teachers who help to restore others (6:1) should also be helped by others (6:6), so that ministry is reciprocal.

Because Paul appeals to the law of Christ here, his specific application of bearing one another’s burdens to help those who have fallen is surely only one application of what he accepts as a much wider principle. The law of Christ may suggest that this behavior was exemplified by Jesus (cf. Mark 10:45).

Paul lays emphasis on one another’s by placing it at the beginning of the Greek sentence. The ideal was not unique to Paul; others in antiquity also spoke of sharing obligations. Paul perhaps cites a familiar maxim, and certainly he cites a familiar (though not widely practiced) ethic. Thus, for example, one told of a horse that refused to help while the ass carried all the burdens; finally the ass dropped dead, and the horse had to carry the full load. One would perceive a loved one not as a burden but rather as someone who might lighten one’s burden.

Is the image meant to evoke anything in particular here? Paul earlier spoke of the “yoke” of the Torah, and yokes could be burdens; that specific sense does not fit the context here. As suggested above, some scholars find a slave image here. Although the poor lacked slaves and thus carried their own burdens, this image makes sense insofar as we think of regularly bearing another’s burdens. If this is the case, the image probably relates to 5:13c: becoming slaves to one another.

The law of Christ (6:2) involves living by Christ, who lives in us (2:20), thus by the Spirit of God’s Son (4:6). This means a life consistent with his character (5:22–23), walking in the steps of the Spirit (5:16, 18, 25), which more than fulfills the moral demands of the law (5:18, 23). But what else might the phrase mean in relation to the law of Moses, to the law of love (5:14), and to Christ’s earthly ministry more generally?

A CLOSER LOOK: THE LAW OF CHRIST

This phrase the law of Christ is one of the most debated in Galatians, not because we lack clues but because the surfeit of clues lead to various, divergent suggestions. Following are some of the major views, although many representatives of these views overlap substantially:

Some interpreters have opposed Christ’s law to the law of Moses, contending that if Paul spoke of two covenants in Galatians (Gal. 4:24; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 14), he could speak of two laws. This proposal merits at least consideration. Ancient interpreters sometimes had to decide which law was more important when laws conflicted. The law of Moses reflected God’s heart as exemplified in ancient Israel’s context, and its stipulations addressed an ancient Near Eastern context.

Yet even in the Pentateuch, God always desired hearts that gladly fulfilled the principles behind those laws (e.g., Deut. 4:29; 5:29; 6:5–6; 10:12; 11:13, 18; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10, 14). Others thus see the law of Christ here not as opposed to the law of Moses but as continuing and applying the law of Moses in some way. The Qumran sect may offer an analogy as a movement that saw itself as not only continuing the Torah and prophets but also experiencing a further stage of revelation. Not only many gentiles but also some Jews thought of a universal moral law that could be deduced from the law of nature.

Most importantly, Scripture already promised the law written within the hearts of God’s people (Jer. 31:33), accomplished through the Spirit (Ezek. 36:27), and Paul elsewhere relates the new covenant experience to these promises (2 Cor. 3:3, 6). This understanding obviously comports with the Spirit, against whose fruit there is no law (Gal. 5:16, 18, 22–23). Paul often modifies “law” with genitive nouns, such as “law of my mind” (Rom. 7:23), “law of sin” (7:23, 25; 8:2), or “law of the Spirit” (8:2). The law taught what was right, but its effect on human beings depends on what forces take hold of it.

But if it is in some way the law of Moses (and I am inclined to think that it is), how is this reframed in Christ? What form does it take? Traditions about Jesus’s teachings emphasize the heart of the law (e.g., Matt. 5:21–48; 9:13; 23:23; Mark 10:5; Luke 11:42), especially the love commandment (Mark 12:31) that Paul has already noted in Gal. 5:14. Although Paul does not specify that it comes from Jesus, this was one of Jesus’s most fundamental and widely influential teachings, probably known to both Paul and the Galatians (as well as Paul’s opponents).

Many interpreters have articulated this view. Augustine opined, “The ‘law of Christ’ means the law of love.” Theodoret of Cyrrhus concurred. So did Heinrich Bullinger, Erasmus Sarcerius, and John Calvin. This view, like views regarding the law of Moses, is compatible with some other views, such as that Jesus also exemplified this law of love by dying for sinners.

Some who agree that the law of Christ includes love believe that it also includes his other ethical teachings, some of which may also be evoked here and in this context (esp. the saying in 6:6). James Dunn points out that Paul did pass on ethical traditions (1 Cor. 11:2; 1 Thess. 4:2; 2 Thess. 2:15). More importantly, Dunn notes that Paul sometimes invoked Jesus’s teachings (1 Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23–25) or information about him (1 Cor. 15:3–7), and often he could do so without needing to identify the source (Rom. 12:14; 14:13–14; 16:19; 1 Thess. 5:2, 5, 13). Further, at the beginning of the larger section (Gal. 5:13–6:10), Paul draws on a central teaching of Jesus (5:13–14). Some of Jesus’s other ethical sayings may be echoed in this context:

Other allusions are possible, though only if we already, for other reasons, presuppose echoes of Jesus’s teachings here: seeking to elude or survive temptation (Gal. 6:1; Mark 14:38; Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4); not competing against one another (Gal. 5:26) or overestimating oneself (Gal. 6:3; Matt. 23:12 // Luke 14:11; Mark 9:35; Luke 9:48; 18:14); do not be deceived (Gal. 6:7; Mark 13:5). Most other possible allusions to Jesus’s teachings are too general to offer any degree of certainty. Thus, for example, agrarian images such as sowing and reaping (Gal. 6:7–8; 1 Cor. 9:11; 2 Cor. 9:6) were common; so, in Jewish circles, was the idea of storing up for heaven (Matt. 6:19–20; Luke 12:21) or for judgment (Rom. 2:5; James 5:3).

Moreover, fairly soon after citing the love command elsewhere (Rom. 13:8–10), Paul appeals to Jesus’s example (15:1–2, 5), as he may do here. If the law of Christ includes Jesus’s teaching, then it could also include his example, to which Paul clearly appeals in a similar context. Jesus appeals to his own example in his teaching about serving one another (Mark 10:43–45), by which Paul might illustrate what he means by the law of love (Gal. 5:13–14).

Certainly, Paul’s greatest example of love in Galatians is God’s Son giving himself in death (2:20). The law of Christ would then mean bearing one another’s burdens as Christ did (1:4; 2:20; 3:13); this would be a new way of life following Christ’s model. (Johannine circles also appealed to Jesus’s model as well as his teaching.) Many scholars thus see the law of Christ as an appeal to Jesus’s teaching and example.

Some combine almost all these later views on our list: the law of Christ refers to “law as interpreted by the love command in the light of the Jesus-tradition and the Christ-event.” This synthesis is probably right; what seems most certain is that it is the law as interpreted in light of Jesus, especially the love command in 5:14, and now lived out through the Spirit of Christ living in believers (5:18, 23), in a way that includes bearing one another’s burdens.

Given the emphasis on the role of the Spirit vis-à-vis the law in 5:16–25, it is surprising that many interpreters do not also mention the role of the Spirit here. In fact, next to Jesus’s teaching about love in Gal. 5:14, reference to the Spirit’s role in fulfilling the law is the clearest reference in the context (see comment on 5:16, 18, 23). Indeed, it seems logical that Paul meant by the law of Christ also what he meant by “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2).

Fulfill the law of Christ here means to carry it out. This is true whichever textual reading one accepts, whether the aorist imperative or the perhaps slightly likelier future indicative.

6:3

3For if somebody thinks that they’re something when in fact they’re nothing, they’re fooling themselves.

In 6:3, Paul continues the preceding thought: avoiding being conceited (5:26), we should not look down on those whom we must restore, since we too may be tempted (6:1); we therefore cannot boast by comparing ourselves favorably with another (6:4). In short, the good news of Christ’s grace reminds us that none of us is anything by ourselves.

This reproof could be a particularly difficult truth for those of high status. In Greek, Paul earlier uses similar wording with respect to the pillars: the figures respected as being something (τῶν δοκούντων εἰναί τι, tōn dokountōn einai ti; 2:6); here he speaks of somebody who thinks that they’re something (δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι, dokei tis einai ti, 6:3). The key difference is that in 2:6, others attribute this value to the pillars; here, the arrogant person attributes it to himself or herself. Such a person’s exalted self-valuation contrasts with Jesus, who humbled himself and embraced the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6–11). Paul often warns against the dangers of thinking more highly of oneself than one should, the most analogous passage being 1 Cor. 8:2: “If anyone thinks they know something, they don’t yet know what’s really necessary to know.”

Many commentators suggest that Paul borrows here a familiar maxim; though the wording may not be identical, certainly the idea on which Paul draws was in wide circulation. Ancient philosophy also emphasized self-examination, a matter of interest also to Paul elsewhere (1 Cor. 2:15; 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5). Self-deception was also a topic of interest; thus, for example, Catullus complains that someone has deceived himself into thinking that he is a good poet. If being deceived by others could be perceived as gullibility, self-deception was absurd folly. Philosophy often contrasted reality and mere appearance.

Commentators sometimes also cite the Greek proverb about self-evaluation at Gal. 6:1. It seems no less apt in 6:3, however, since 6:3 continues the warning of 6:1 against looking down on another who fails. Knowing one’s own limits is needed in order to avoid boasting about others’ failings, of which one is capable oneself. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus warned that one who is ignorant of one’s identity or purpose or world “will go about deaf and blind, thinking that he is somebody, when he really is nobody.”

The sentiment appears as early as Plato. Socrates reportedly averred that those who thought themselves great thereby showed themselves fools. To say that someone is nothing sometimes meant that the person could accomplish nothing. Closer is the verdict of Paul’s Stoic contemporary, Seneca: our finiteness and mortality remind us that we are nothing. “If you have time to waste praising me,” Musonius, another Stoic, complained, “I am conscious that what I say is worth nothing.” After him, Epictetus warned, “If you think you are somebody . . . do not believe yourself.” Or compare the Jewish Wisdom of Solomon: even someone perfect by human standards will be reckoned as nothing without the wisdom that comes from God.

6:4

4But each person should test their own work, and then one will have grounds for boasting with respect to oneself alone rather than by comparison to somebody else.

Since the terms for burdens in 6:2 and load in 6:5 are essentially synonymous, many scholars here find a tension that needs to be resolved. Writers did sometimes use paradox to force consideration of a point (see, e.g., 1 John 1:8–2:2). Often the possible paradox here is resolved by saying that we should be ready to carry another’s load but not eager to dump our load on others.

Paul may have agreed with that idea (cf. Acts 20:35), but the context suggests a more specific sense here. We cannot justify ourselves by comparing ourselves with others (Gal. 6:4), as Paul had done under the law (1:14; cf. 2 Cor. 10:12). Some plausibly suggest that the comparison with others here is a backhanded slap at Paul’s opponents, ready to boast in the Galatians’ circumcised flesh (Gal. 6:12–13). Still, Paul’s primary concern in the immediate context seems to be boasting (6:3) because of competition (5:26) and looking down on others who do not measure up to the righteous standard as well (6:1). Instead of self-deceptively boasting in ourselves (6:3), we should examine our work and come to a realistic self-appraisal (6:4).

Men in ancient Mediterranean urban society competed for honor; self-praise was unacceptable unless the speaker followed particular conventions to make it appear necessary or profitable. This boasting often involved comparison with others. Paul here instead calls for a sober self-estimate, as in Rom. 12:3.

The term work (ἔργον, ergon) may also be significant. One should examine whether one simply has “works of the law” (Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; cf. Rom. 3:20, 27–28; 4:2, 6; 9:32; 11:6), which are works from the flesh (Gal. 5:19). One’s “work” will be revealed in the day of judgment (1 Cor. 3:13–15; 9:1). To test their own work calls for self-evaluation, as in 1 Cor. 11:28 and 2 Cor. 13:5, where Paul employs the same verb δοκιμάζω (dokimazō).

6:5

5For each person will carry their own load.

Repetition of the verb from 6:2 in 6:5 (in both cases carry; βαστάζω, bastazō) suggests that 6:5 plays off of the language of 6:2. Explaining how it does so is the problem, however, because the first verse exhorts the carrying of others’ burdens and the second asserts that each will carry their own. Some view the tension as requiring the community to judge which kind of burdens need the community’s help and which should be carried on one’s own. Others suggest that one must be ready to carry others’ burdens but slow to relinquish responsibility for one’s own.

Because 6:6 addresses finances, some suspect the same for 6:5; insofar as possible, persons must be self-supporting rather than burdening others. Paul might well appreciate that view (1 Thess. 4:11–12), but the preceding context, which typically should inform our reading more directly, probably points in a different direction.

The flow of context appears to run more like this: if we want to evaluate ourselves (6:4), we must do it by our own work rather than by comparing it with someone else’s (6:1, 4), since in this sense, of answering for our work alone, each of us must carry our own load (6:5). Many scholars thus find here a reference to each of us answering for ourselves at the future judgment. Many other scholars doubt that Paul has in view the final judgment here, suggesting that the future tense of carry (in Greek; also ASV, NASB, ESV; not in the NRSV) is simply gnomic, reflecting a principle.

Nevertheless, future judgment is likely in view, as in 6:7–9. The sense is probably similar to Rom. 14:12, where each person must give an account of themselves at the judgment. This might help explain the shift in verb forms: the future indicative forms will have (v. 4; NRSV: “become”) and will carry (v. 5) here as opposed to the present imperative form carry in 6:2. It also fits the future character of the outcome in 6:8–9. In this case, the difference between 6:2 and 6:5 is one of timing: now we carry one another’s burdens (6:2), including by helping those who are tempted (6:1). In the day of judgment, however, we will answer for ourselves, not by comparison with these others (6:5).

6:6

6And let the one who’s being instructed in the message share all good things with one’s instructor.

Because of shared wording with Pauline passages about the collection (compare Gal. 6:8 with 2 Cor. 9:6), a few scholars have seen reference to the collection here. But by itself, “teacher” is an inadequate signal that Paul would be referring to the Jerusalem church, and the shared language probably simply points to shared interest in finance and divine reward. Moreover, one might expect Paul to have gone easier on Jerusalem in Gal. 4:25–26 if raising support to take to them was high on his agenda at this point. Most interpreters apply 6:6 to what it suggests on the surface: those who teach in the Christian home assemblies.

Teachers who help to restore others (6:1) should also be helped by others (6:6), so that ministry is reciprocal. (All who are people of the Spirit should help to restore others, but teachers might take the lead.) Reciprocity was expected as part of the ancient Mediterranean honor code. But it is also part of Paul’s theology of being members with one another in the same body (Rom. 12:5; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12). As noted above, it also probably reflects Jesus’s saying about those who received workers supplying the workers’ needs (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7), a teaching familiar to Paul and other early Christians (1 Cor. 9:14; 1 Tim. 5:18; Did. 13.2).

Those who receive ministry in spiritual matters should contribute in material matters (Rom. 15:27), because sowing to the Spirit reaps eternal dividends (Gal. 6:8–9). In this way, caring for teachers (6:6) and other believers (6:10) is another way to “bear one another’s burdens” (6:2), in addition to teachers and others helping those in spiritual need (6:1).

Some also suggest that Paul may mention teachers in order to make certain that his emphasis on financial self-reliance in 6:5 is not construed against providing for teachers, though this requires a different reading of 6:5 than I have suggested is likely. Others suggest, in my view more persuasively, that Paul’s concern for supporting teachers offers a further example of Christian love and mutuality.

All good things sometimes appears elsewhere with reference to material matters and thus is consistent with the view that support is envisioned here. The designation does not necessarily mean money or wages, however. Paul did receive support on multiple occasions (2 Cor. 11:8–9; Phil. 4:10, 14–16), but in a more rural context the saying of Jesus (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7) cited in 1 Cor. 9:14 and 1 Tim. 5:17–18 refers to provisions such as food and shelter, not to money per se. Probably a generation or two after Paul this was also most of what congregations would give to prophets, although money could be included.

A CLOSER LOOK: SUPPORTING TEACHERS

Some priests in Asia Minor became wealthy from the fees charged for entering some temples, though they did not offer teaching. Local churches were more like associations, but in contrast to associations, which charged dues, Christian assemblies depended on voluntary contributions.

Teachers were supported by various means in antiquity. Various philosophers allowed different means of support: fees (tuition), dependence on a wealthy household, begging, and manual labor. Begging was an especially Cynic practice, though this generated others’ disdain. Some Cynics thus instructed others to practice begging from statues so they could grow accustomed to having their requests ignored. For many others, manual labor was the least appealing means of support, distracting one from intellectual concerns. Although Socrates did not charge fees, his successors normally did; so did most sages who could make a living this way. Nevertheless, this practice too generated criticisms about greedy preachers or sages gaining wealth at the expense of the gullible.

Because wandering mendicant preachers developed reputations for seeking money, Paul countered potential accusations of greed (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17; 7:2; 11:7–13; 1 Thess. 2:5) by refusing pay from churches that might view him as a dependent (1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 12:13–15). Some other popular preachers likewise sought to distinguish themselves from disreputable preachers. Those careful about accepting money elicited praise.

Those reputed to be good teachers, however, could gain respect and income. It was also respectable to supply the needs of one’s past teachers. Probably most house congregations were too small to afford a full-time teacher, unless a wealthier patron sponsored one. Insofar as time spent preparing teaching (or preparing knowledge that eventually could be used for teaching) might reduce time spent earning income, contributions to offset this would benefit the teacher’s household.

Paul usually employs this term for share (κοινωνέω, koinōneō) with reference to sharing financially (Rom. 15:27; Phil. 4:15; probably Rom. 12:13). It need not, however, evoke a utopian community sharing all things in common (an understanding apparently closer to the intention of Luke in Acts 2:44).

Who were the teachers to whom Paul refers here? This role probably appears elsewhere in Paul with reference to the spiritual gift of teachers (Rom. 12:7; 1 Cor. 14:6), a gift that Paul ranks next to apostles and prophets (1 Cor. 12:28–29; cf. Eph. 4:11). If Paul is revisiting earlier themes (Gal. 5:11), “the one who instructs” could even be not a generic description but Paul himself (the same verb, κατηχέω [katēcheō], applies to him in 1 Cor. 14:19)! That Paul solicits personal support here, however, would seem grossly unlikely in a letter where even the audience’s loyalty is in question (Gal. 4:16–18).

Some of these teachers might include leaders whom Paul earlier appointed (Acts 14:23); then again, given the relative newness of such elders to faith in Christ, most of them probably would have proved no match for the “special” Judean teachers from Jerusalem who were Paul’s rivals (cf. Acts 20:29; 1 Tim. 3:6, 10). Strangely, Paul does not name any teachers here. Paul’s silence about leaders in this letter outside this generalizing statement does not prove their unfaithfulness, but it does contrast with Paul’s apparent practice in some other letters (cf. Rom. 16:1–7; 1 Cor. 16:10–11, 15; Phil. 4:2–3). He does not specifically name them in 1 Thess. 5:12–13, but that was a much younger church at the time than was the church in Galatia. In any case, the Galatians would naturally infer from the rest of the letter that their support should go only to those who were teaching in accordance with the gospel that they had received from the start, not the message that they had from Paul’s adversaries.

6:7

7Don’t be fooled: God isn’t mocked. A person will reap what they sow.

The warning not to be deceived was common hortatory language, appearing also elsewhere in Paul (1 Cor. 15:33), including in warnings of damnation (1 Cor. 6:9). Some had mocked God’s prophets (2 Chron. 36:16; Jer. 20:7), mocked divine Wisdom (Prov. 1:30; cf. 1 Clem. 57.5), and mocked Christians (1 Clem. 39.1). But God isn’t mocked (Gal. 6:7; Polycarp, Phil. 5.1); in other words, in the long run, those who mock God suffer the consequences of their folly. The Greek term used here for “mock” was not always employed in a technical rhetorical sense, but that definition may communicate the image: “a sneering remark” accompanied by “a certain movement and drawing together of the nostrils.”

Normally, sowing was an image of hard work. In view of Paul’s use of sowing and reaping language elsewhere (1 Cor. 9:11; 2 Cor. 9:6), here to sow includes providing material blessing to sound teachers, from whom one has profited spiritually (Gal. 6:6). At the same time, 6:7–10 also caps off the section, with let’s work for everyone’s good (6:10) covering the entire section. Thus the “fruit of the Spirit” in the present (5:22–23) is a foretaste of the eschatological fruit, the full harvest, in the Spirit (6:7–9).

Agrarian images were naturally pervasive; even cities were not far from the countryside. They appear commonly in texts addressing benefaction and reciprocity, as here. The present saying, a person will reap what they sow, was such a familiar image in various cultures, commonly worded in similar ways, that we may readily call it a truism or maxim (cf. 1 Cor. 9:11; 2 Cor. 9:6). In an old Greek verse, it is just if people treat an evildoer as he has treated others, for if one sows evil, he will reap evil. So also a pre-Christian Jewish sage: “My child, do not sow in furrows of injustice, and you will not reap these things sevenfold.” Philo often speaks of sowing evil and reaping the same, and he offers other, similar formulations. Some used such proverbs to insist on the certainty of divine retribution; others, simply to insist that one will experience what one causes others to experience. (Paul, of course, envisions direct divine involvement.)

6:8

8Because the one who sows for their own flesh will reap perishing from the flesh, but the one who sows for the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

The background for the image of 6:8 may include LXX Hosea 10:12: “Sow for yourselves righteousness, gather the fruit of life; enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge” (cf. Eph. 5:9: “the fruit of the light”); if we want the fruit of the Spirit, we must sow to the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:22–23), which brings life, rather than to the flesh, which brings destruction (5:19–21). Though his people had sown and reaped sin (Hosea 10:13), God would make them sow and reap righteousness (10:11–12); God would be the dew and cause Israel to blossom and bear fruit (14:5–7), and he would be the source of their fruit (14:8). Galatians 6:8 alludes back especially to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). One may also compare other earlier biblical warnings: the wicked will eat the fruit of their way (Prov. 1:31; cf. 1 Clem. 57.6); the righteous will eat the fruit of theirs (Isa. 3:10 [not LXX]).

In view of 6:6, “sowing for the flesh” presumably includes supporting teachers who promote circumcision of Christian gentiles. Sowing for their own flesh must also include accepting their policy of circumcision, by which Paul’s opponents would boast in the flesh of Paul’s readers (6:12–13). In view of 5:13–24, however, sowing for their own flesh cannot be limited to circumcision; it includes any works such as those in 5:19–21.

A person of the Spirit, secure in his or her future with God, is free to focus not on self but on serving others (6:9–10). In the present image, flesh and Spirit may be represented as soil into which a person sows and from which the harvest comes. Paul’s use of images may not be strictly consistent; Paul associates with fruit or organic, agrarian images the Spirit more often than the flesh (Rom. 8:23), including in the present context (Gal. 5:22). God’s Spirit is naturally associated also with resurrection (Rom. 1:4; 8:10–11; 1 Cor. 15:44; cf. Ezek. 37:1–14; Rev. 11:11).

The harvest here is eschatological, a familiar image. “Life” language in Galatians (2:19–20; 3:11; 5:25) is usually shorthand for the longer Jewish expression “eternal life,” the life of the resurrection (Dan. 12:2), a phrase often appearing in early Jewish sources and in early Christianity, including the Pauline corpus. Luke’s only use of the phrase in Acts appears in the first preaching in Galatia (Acts 13:46, 48), although Paul uses it more often in his letter to believers in Rome (Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23).

Influenced by Platonism, some Greek and Roman thinkers associated perishing, or “corruption” (φθορά, phthora), with all earthly, material substances; unlike the pure and eternal heavens, everything earthly was changeable, hence subject to decay and mortality. From this perspective, mortality entails the corruptibility of flesh.

Thus, for Paul, the present creation experiences corruption/decay until the new creation comes (Rom. 8:21); the current body is perishable, in contrast to the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15:42, 50); rudimentary human rules (στοιχεῖα, stoicheia) about touching, tasting, and the like, will perish (Col. 2:20–22). Other early Christians spoke of the corruption in the world because of desire (2 Pet. 1:4), applicable to false teachers who are like beasts (2 Pet. 2:12; cf. Jude 10), slaves of corruption (2 Pet. 2:19). For Paul, believers now live—have eternal life through Christ and the Spirit living in them—even though they live in the flesh (Gal. 2:20). But one who has only flesh is fully perishable; only those in whose lives the Spirit plays a part have the promise of imperishable, incorruptible, unending life with their creator.

Christians who revert to the life of the flesh, as the Galatians threatened to do through preferring customs of the old age to their new life in the Spirit, can ultimately revert to a preconverted state and reap the destruction that characterizes mortal flesh left to itself. This is not to say that eternal life is conditioned on their obedience to stipulations; rather, eternal life represents the full, promised inheritance of which they became heirs in Christ, and it remains available only to those who remain in Christ.

6:9

9Let’s not get discouraged with doing what’s good, because at the right time we’ll reap the harvest if we don’t give up before then.

Exhortations not to grow weary or give up unsurprisingly appear elsewhere in antiquity (cf. 2 Thess. 3:13); what is more significant here is what the Galatians are not to give up on. In exhorting the Galatian believers not to grow weary (6:9), Paul is warning them not to turn away, back to their old life (5:4).

For Paul, doing what’s good follows not from the law but from grace (cf. Rom. 7:19, 21). Paul’s opposition to “works of the law” (Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, 12)—works undertaken in order to fulfill the demand of the law—does not mean opposition to good works, which are praised in the Pauline corpus here and elsewhere.

There were probably few ancient sages who did not value doing what’s good. Good was a common moral criterion; Stoics in particular emphasized this criterion. Virtue was part of the chief good, and philosophers valued seeking the supreme good. The prudent could distinguish what was good from what was bad. Hellenistic Jewish works could speak of doing good to others and so being rewarded by God as the greatest good. Philo presents God both as the source of what is good and as above what is good. Later rabbis emphasized the goodness of God and the Torah and highly valued good works.

Though agrarian illustrations were common, Paul envisions here the eschatological harvest, perhaps evoking Jesus’s use of that image.

6:10

10Therefore, then, while we still have the chance, let’s work for everyone’s good, and especially for that of fellow believers, our spiritual family members.

Writers and speakers often concluded a section with a summary statement; insofar as 6:10 is a concluding summary (thus beginning with Therefore, then), it shows that we may express love and fruitfully follow the Spirit (5:13–25) not by mere subjective feelings but by our acts of service to others (5:26–6:6).

While we still have the chance (6:10) could also be translated “as we have time.” Paul uses the noun translated as chance (καιρός, kairos) in various significant ways, among them a reminder of the eschatological character of the present time, requiring us to awaken and value what matters (Rom. 13:11; 1 Cor. 7:29). What suggests such a sense here is not the word itself, but rather its recurrence from 6:9. Because 6:9 refers to the “time” of the eschatological harvest, Paul may play on that “time”: in light of that coming day of judgment, let us do what is good in the present time while opportunity remains. Here, as in many other passages, Paul in a sense summons Christ’s followers to an eternal perspective, to make decisions in light of what counts for Christ forever (Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 2:6–10; 4:5; 2 Cor. 4:16–5:9; 1 Thess. 5:6–8).

To work for everyone’s good includes each one’s “work” for the Lord in 6:4; good may recall providing good things to teachers (6:6) but is clearly broader (everyone’s good). (For good works, see comment on 6:9.) Others spoke of working for the common good; Paul speaks of such values with regard to the wider community as well as among believers (Rom. 12:13; Phil. 2:3–4; 1 Thess. 5:15; cf. 1 Cor. 12:7). In succeeding centuries Christians became known for helping not only their own who were in need but also those among the pagans.

Yet just as the first priority was normally for members of one’s physical household (cf. 1 Tim. 5:8), believers’ first priority was the needs of their spiritual household. Love of neighbor (Gal. 5:14) included outsiders, but love for members of the family would come first (cf. Rom. 13:8a; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 Pet. 1:22; John 13:34; 15:12, 17; 1 John 2:10; 3:10–11, 16–17, 23; 4:7, 11–12, 20–21; 2 John 5). Given Gal. 6:6, spiritual family members surely includes the churches’ teachers, though in view of everyone’s good, Paul must also include all believers here.

Paul elsewhere uses the image of household or family members for the people of God—to whom the gentile Galatians are now privileged to belong (Eph. 2:19, using the same term, οἰκεῖος [oikeios]). To some degree, the image can evoke the household character of the church, which normally met in homes (e.g., Acts 2:46; 12:12–13; 20:20; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2). It also fits the image of the church as a spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). Given the emphasis on being children of Abraham in the main argument section of Galatians, it might also evoke particularly the people of God as his household (Num. 12:7). In any case, the image certainly affirms that God has welcomed gentile believers.

. Barclay, Obeying, 9–26.

. J. C. O’Neill (Barclay, Obeying, 9–10).

. M. Dibelius (Barclay, Obeying, 10–12); cf. Poplutz, “Gerechtfertigt.” Demonstrable continuity with the rest of the letter has weakened the appeal of this approach (Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 269). Dibelius’s often-followed approach to James (Dibelius, James, 2–7, 21; Perdue, “Paraenesis”; Stowers, Letter Writing, 43) suffers from the same weakness; James uses aphorisms but in a connected way (see Ropes, James, 2–3; Geyser, “James”; Fry, “Testing”).

. E. de W. Burton (Barclay, Obeying, 12–13).

. R. Jewett; W. Lütgert; J. H. Ropes (Barclay, Obeying, 14–16).

. W. Schmithals (Barclay, Obeying, 16–19).

. R. Jewett; H. D. Betz (Barclay, Obeying, 19–22).

. G. Howard; similarly Lull and Brinsmead (Barclay, Obeying, 22–23).

. Barclay, Obeying, 108.

. Augustine, Nat. Gr. 67 (Edwards). Cf. also Wessels, “Call.”

. E.g., Wessels, “Call”; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 616; Mageto, “Ethic”; Butticaz, “Foi.”

. Fee, “Freedom.”

. Fee, Galatians, 200.

. Cf. Matera, Galatians, 32. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Ep. Gal. 5.13 [Edwards]) remarks here that Paul preserves the moral, in contrast to the ceremonial, law.

. DeSilva, Readings, 135; Cosgrove, “Justification.”

. Wessels, “Call.” God’s gift does not rule out a role for law, but offers life to everyone; cf. Barclay, “Gift.”

. Longenecker, Galatians, 246.

. Aune, Rhetoric, 272 (cf. 334), noting Romans, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and Colossians; cf. final exhortations in Fronto, M. Caes. 3.16.2; Rom. 16:17–20; 1 Cor. 16:13–14; 2 Cor. 13:11–12. Contrast O’Neill (Recovery, 65–71), who (virtually alone) declares all of 5:13–6:10 to be an interpolation; it may not fit O’Neill’s understanding of Galatians, but it certainly fits Pauline theology.

. Luther’s approach, rather than (as with Matera and Fee) “the climax of Paul’s argument” (Kamell, “Life,” 362).

. Luther’s preface to Romans (rev. 1546), as cited in Das, Galatians, 589n130.

. Barclay; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 270–71.

. Martyn, Galatians, 481–83. The interpretation of Jerome, finding “an ascetic ideal” in Gal. 5:13–26, esp. 5:22–23 (Pollmann and Elliott, “Galatians,” 49), is amiss.

. See, e.g., Dunn, Theology of Paul, 626–31; further comment at Gal. 5:1.

. E.g., Cicero, Quinct. 25.78–80.

. With Boyce, “Poetry”; Ukwuegbu, “Paraenesis”; for esp. 5:13–18, see Duvall, “Identity”; for esp. 5:13–25, see Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 131–33.

. Because they support the main argument’s thesis, Witherington (Grace, 33) assigns Gal. 5–6 to “the arguments or proofs.”

. Kennedy, Interpretation, 146.

. Although I have worked around it, most translations reasonably supply a verb in this clause (e.g., NRSV: “Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence”); for mē without an explicit verb, see Burton, Galatians, 292; Betz, Galatians, 272n10.

. God called them into Christ’s grace (1:6) just as he called Paul through grace (1:15); God continues to call them now (5:8).

. In 5:13, ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ (ep’ eleutheria; NRSV: “to freedom”; to the sphere of freedom [Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 273]) may be, as I have rendered it, for freedom, a dative of purpose (Longenecker, Galatians, 239; Schreiner, Galatians, 333), perhaps reflecting the language of manumission records (Deissmann, Light, 323–24); see comment on Gal. 5:1. On freedom in Galatians, see Hansen, “Conversion,” 213–36.

. E.g., Livy, Hist. 5.6.17; 27.31.6. Cf. Phaedrus, Fab. 1.2.1–3, 11–31; the Greek saying in Dunn, Galatians, 287.

. Barclay, Gift, 364, citing Josephus, Ant. 4.145–49. For the Torah bringing liberation, see, e.g., m. ʾAbot 6:2; b. B. Meṣ. 85b; b. Qidd. 22b; see further Abrahams, Studies (2), 213.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 14.3–6, 18, in deSilva, Readings, 246. For liberty as freedom from dependence on others, see, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.6–7; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 9.

. See Spawforth, “Free Cities.”

. Wolter, Paulus, 372–76, as summarized in Barclay, Gift, 429n19. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 285.

. Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 544; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 613.

. Fuller, Gospel, 93; Martyn, Galatians, 485; de Boer, Galatians, 335.

. Moo, Galatians, 343n2; cf. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b3, p. 17.22; Buscemi, Lettera, 541; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 179; Jewett, Romans, 449.

. De Boer, Galatians, 337–38; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 274. Elsewhere Paul is thought to personify Sin; see, e.g., Grieb, Story, 65; Sanders, Paul, 633. The closest, yet limited and sparsely documented, early Jewish analogy is personification of the evil impulse; see Best, Temptation, 48; Num. Rab. 11:5; cf. Death in Pss. 49:14; 116:3; Isa. 28:15, 18; Hosea 13:14; Hab. 2:5; Sir. 14:12; T. Ab. 16:1–16 A; 13:1–14:6 B; Sipre Deut. 305.3.3; Dodson, “Wisdom,” 88 (on Wis. 1:12–13). For personification in rhetoric, see Rhet. Her. 4.53.66.

. Barclay, Gift, 426.

. As regularly noted, e.g., Barclay, Obeying, 109; Barclay, Gift, 425; Dunn, Galatians, 288; Witherington, Grace, 378; Hays, “Galatians,” 321; de Boer, Galatians, 341; Moo, Galatians, 345.

. Moo, Galatians, 345n6.

. Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:13 (Bray). In his Freedom of a Christian, Luther continued the paradox by calling a Christian both lord and subject of all (Moo, Galatians, 345).

. Barclay, Gift, 435. In stark contrast to the wider cultural ambition for honor, believers should compete to honor others (Rom. 12:10; Barclay, Gift, 436). See also Hays, “Christology and Ethics,” 283–86, and comparisons with Epictetus.

. Cf. Dibelius, Tradition, 157; rhetorical shock effects in Anderson, Glossary, 88; oxymoron in Rowe, “Style,” 143.

. Xenophon, Cyr. 8.1.4.

. Philo, Good Person 20.

. More distant Greek parallels (e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.10, in Thom, “Akousmata,” 111) are not particularly helpful in this instance, since Jesus and Paul here directly depend on Torah. Tradition regarding Jesus’s teaching on love is coherent; see, e.g., Matt. 5:44 // Luke 6:27, 35. Brinsmead (Galatians, 174) finds considerable Q tradition in Gal. 6 (see 338n115), but the verbal parallels are sparse.

. Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.7; Gen. Rab. 24:7. More fully on traditional Jewish interpretations of Lev. 19:18, see Neudecker, “Love.”

. For the debates, see, e.g., Sipra V. D. Dehob. par. 1.34.1.3; 12.65.1.3; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 64; Flusser, Judaism, 496; cf. Matt. 23:23. Many Jewish thinkers considered honoring parents the supreme commandment; see Let. Aris. 228; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.206; Ps.-Phoc. 8; Moore, Judaism, 2:85, 132.

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 1:12, attributed to Hillel; Jub. 36:4, 8. See further Söding, “Feindeshass”; Neudecker, “Love.”

. Cf. also Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:22; 4:8; further, Lev. 19:18 as the “royal law” in James 2:8: the law of the king, Jesus, who expounded Lev. 19:18.

. Other Jewish teachers also conjoined love of God with love of neighbor (Philo, Decalogue 108–10; T. Iss. 5:2; 7:6; T. Dan 5:3; cf. Philo, Good Person 83; Josephus, Ant. 3.213). Following the Jewish interpretive principle gezerah sheva, it was natural to link two commandments on the basis of the common opening word wĕʾahabta, “and you shall love” (Diezinger, “Liebesgebot”; Flusser, Judaism, 479).

. Sanders, Judaism, 257–60; Sanders, Paul, 554; Longenecker, Galatians, 243, citing Daube, New Testament and Judaism, 65–66; cf. Rom. 13:9.

. b. Šabb. 31a (Longenecker [Galatians, 243–44] curiously uses Tg. Ps.-J. on Lev. 19:18, which is probably significantly later, to attribute a link to Lev. 19:18 “in Hillel’s day”). For other Jewish epitomes of the law, see ʾAbot R. Nat. 27A; 24, §49B; Philo, Decalogue 154; 4 Macc. 2:7–9 (cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 1.20.14–15); general summary of principles was an important practice of Jewish law (Goulder, Midrash, 25; Vermes, Religion, 44).

. Mek. Vay. on Exod. 15:26, cited in Barclay, Obeying, 136n95.

. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.11.

. A significant difference, noted by Barclay (Obeying, 136). On what at least Paul’s fellow Jews may have seen as his selective application of commandments to gentiles, see Barclay, Obeying, 124; Sanders, Paul, 314, 642–43, 697, 704.

. For the spirit of the law even in ancient Israel, see, e.g., Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 222–36, esp. 222–23; Gane, Law, 29–37, esp. 34.

. Dunn, Galatians, 289. Cf. Epiphanius, Pan. 42.12.3, Fifth Refutation of Marcion (Edwards); Kruse, Romans, 329.

. Dunn, Galatians, 292.

. Barclay, Gift, 431 (cf. 473); Betz, Galatians, 275; de Boer, Galatians, 346; cf. Hong, “Law and Ethics”; Hong, Law in Galatians, 182–83. Luther at times saw the law of love as nevertheless a law that believers should follow, without expecting it to save them (Wengert, “Luther,” 107); yet he also saw it as the necessary product of faith rather than an obligation (Hafemann, “Yaein,” 131).

. For how unusual this term is, see Barclay, Obeying, 138 (though I think that the uses with “commandment” are significant); cf. Barclay, Gift, 431.

. Martyn (Galatians, 488) critiques this view as dependent on Rom. 13:8–10; yet of all possible backgrounds for Galatians, is not Paul’s own thought on the subject our closest option for reconstructing his meaning?

. Barclay, Obeying, 139. Thus only those in Christ can fulfill this as it is meant to be fulfilled (141).

. De Boer, Galatians, 343–47; cf. Betz, Galatians, 275; note the common use of plēroō in the Gospels and Acts. Oakes (Galatians, 171), however, objects that this interpretation ignores the standard use of “you shall” in Jewish law.

. Martyn, Galatians, 488, 558; de Boer, Galatians, 346–47 (in the sense of promise); cf. Winger, “Law,” 540–41.

. Martyn, Galatians, 488–90. Cf. the christological focus in Suh, “Completion.”

. De Boer, Galatians, 345. One could, however, envision it as Christ’s love through them (cf. Gal. 2:20).

. This assumes, however, a continuity between the law mentioned in 5:14 and the law of Christ, a continuity that is much disputed (see comment on 6:2).

. ʾAbot R. Nat. 16A. This was also a common gentile perception of Jews (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5).

. CD 6.20–21; 9.2–3; Josephus, J.W. 2.119; for love of neighbor in Essene circles, see Söding, “Feindeshass.”

. Cf. Luke 10:27; T. Iss. 7:6; perhaps Jub. 7:20; 20:2; 36:4; Hillel in m. ʾAbot 1:12. Livneh (“Fellow”) shows how Jubilees applies Lev. 19:17–18 in Jub. 7:15, 20, 26; 11:2; 20:2, 12; 22:3; 35:1–38:14.

. 1 Sam. 18:1; T. Sim. 4:6–7. For treating a friend as oneself, see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 17.37.6; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.23; cf. Cicero, Fam. 13.1.5; Fin. 1.20.70; Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.63.

. With Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:14; also (noted in Grant, Paul, 41), Augustine, City 19.14. Cf. Eph. 5:29; Seneca Y., Lucil. 14.1; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.22.15; even animals in Hierocles, Ethics 6.44–45; Seneca Y., Lucil. 121.24. For the negative side of self-love, see, e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. 9.8.1, 1168a; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.90; Plutarch, Flatterer 1 (Mor. 49A); Praising 19 (Mor. 546F); Sent. Sextus 138; some thirty-five times in Philo (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1.49; 3.231; Cherubim 74; Sacrifices 3; 32; 52; 58; Worse 32, 68, 78). For distinction between correct self-interest and beastly or inappropriate self-love, see Aristotle Eth. nic. 9.8.2, 5, 1168b; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.11; cf. Seneca Y., Nat. 4A. pref. 1–2; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 5.2.

. In Stoicism, cf. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 54. For imagining oneself in another’s place and acting on their behalf, cf. Young, “Commandment.”

. Rivalry sometimes became antithetical to friendship (Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.9.6a; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 22.101). “Take care” (βλέπετε, blepete) is the same admonition in Greek as in Acts 13:40, but though it is rare in Luke’s work (elsewhere in Luke-Acts only Luke 21:8, following Mark 13:5; cf. Luke 8:18), it appears elsewhere in Paul in letters to other regions (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:12 [blepetō]; cf. 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 10:7; Phil. 3:2).

. In Lev. 19:18, loving one’s neighbor encompasses and exceeds all the prohibitions of wronging one’s neighbor in the context (19:9–18, 19:11–18, or 19:13–18).

. Dunn (Galatians, 293) provides examples from the French Revolution and Jewish sectarianism after the Maccabean revolt. One could supply many others: boundless Protestant divisibility since the Reformation; ethnic and political wars within some African countries after European colonialism; post-Saddam sectarian warfare in Iraq; tribal conflict in South Sudan after independence from Sudan; and so forth. Soards and Pursiful (Galatians, 298) illustrate the principle through William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies.

. See discussion in BDF §§371–72; Longenecker, Galatians, 244; Fee, Galatians, 206; Moo, Galatians, 349.

. Noted by Betz, Galatians, 276–7; Dunn, Galatians, 293.

. See, e.g., Xenophon, Hier. 7.3; Mem. 1.2.30; Rhet. Alex. pref. 1420ab.4–5; Polybius, Hist. 1.80.10; Cicero, Mil. 12.32; 31.85; Pis. 1.1; Seneca Y., Lucil. 103.2; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 10, p. 78.27–28; 14, p. 92.21; 18B, p. 116.14; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.3.7, 9; 2.9.3, 5; 4.1.127; 4.5.21; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 8.14, 21; 32.26; 77/78.29; Plutarch, Demosth. 26.4; Bride 7 (Mor. 139B); R. Col. 2 (Mor. 1108D); Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 28; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 15.2; 33.7–8; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.16; Philodemus, Death 35.14–15; Crit. frg. 52.2–3; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.30; Libanius, Anec. 2.1.

. With Witherington, Grace, 384.

. E.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.123, 129; Polybius, Hist. 9.24.6–7; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 34/35.12.1; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.5; Plutarch, Cic. 10.3; 49.2; Apollodorus, Epit. 2.13; 7.4; Philostratus, Her. 25.15. Some barbarians were thought to practice this; see Thucydides, Hist. 3.94.5; (Pseudo-)Tibullus, Eleg. 3.7.144–45; Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 3.207; Aulus Gellius, Att. 9.4.6; Philostratus, Her. 57.9. The charge against Christians (Athenagoras, Leg. 3; 35; Theophilus, Autol. 3.4, 15) is probably not as early as Galatians.

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 10, p. 78.27–28.

. For battle and bloodshed, see Seneca E., Controv. 1.8.16. Note another possibly figurative use of cannibalism in Horsley, Documents 4, 57–58, §16.

. Cf. also LXX Mic. 3:5, using the same term for “bite” (δάκνω, daknō) as in Gal. 5:15. In T. Gad 2:2, Gad wanted to “gobble” up Joseph (trans. H. C. Kee, OTP 1:814). Cf. also the wicked devouring sinners in 1 En. 103:11, 15.

. m. ʾAbot 3:2 (my translation).

. Antisthenes uses it for flatterers in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.4, and for the envious consumed by envy in 6.1.5. In Phaedrus, Fab. 4.8.1–2, biting with evil teeth another who can bite still harder may depict mocking another more skilled in repartee.

. Cf. perhaps the “dogs” whose “works” are evil, who mutilate others’ private parts (Phil. 3:2) and live for their bellies (3:19), though these could each be unrelated images.

. Jewett, Romans, 450. On rivalry here, cf. Barclay, Gift, 434–35.

. See, e.g., Gorgias, Hel. 6–8; Pliny E., Nat. 33.21.66; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.8; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.6–7; Tacitus, Ann. 16.21–32; Pliny Y., Ep. 6.29.1–2; Soranus, Gynec. 1.intro.2; 1.1.3; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.1–2, 375.7–8; 385.8; Apuleius, Apol. 67; Hermogenes, Inv. 3.1.126–3.2.128; Porphyry, Marc. 24.376–84; see esp. Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; Rowe, “Style,” 134. For book outlines, see Keener, Acts, 1:708–9.

. Witherington (Grace, 389) notes the connection between 5:16 and 5:25–26 as an inclusio.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 246; Braxton, “Galatians,” 343–44; for the Spirit and ethics, see, e.g., Horn, “Wandel” (though Gal. 5:22–23 suggests that the Spirit’s role is not limited to love); Haufe, “Geistmotiv”; Meagher, “Spirit”; Laguë, “Prière”; Loubser, “Life”; Hartog, “Role.”

. This passage played a role in the Qumran sectarians’ pneumatology; see 1QS 4.21.

. “New” could be a term linking Ezek. 36:26 with Jer. 31:31.

. For radical dependence on God in the OT, cf. God as the (source of the) strength of one’s life in Pss. 18:1; 27:1; 28:7–8; 31:2, 4; 37:39; 73:26; 118:14; 138:3; 140:7.

. Aletti, “Exhortations,” 321.

. Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 2.5.16 (Edwards). Cf. similarly Hansen, Galatians, 168: “a way of living in which all aspects of life are directed and transformed by the Spirit.”

. Sanders, Paul, 457.

. This could also be translated “in,” but probably the dative πνεύματι (pneumati) functions especially instrumentally here, hence “by means of” the Spirit; with Moule, Idiom Book, 44; Longenecker, Galatians, 244; Wallace, Grammar, 165–66 (cf. 158). Lightfoot (Galatians, 209) suggests a “dative of the rule or direction.” Some argue that Paul’s grammatical ambiguity allows for both a locative sense (dative of sphere) and a dative of means (Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 280–81); certainly both fit Pauline theology. Beyond mere means, however, the Spirit shapes the Christian life (Gal. 5:22–23) (Moo, Galatians, 353); the Spirit energizes and empowers believer-agency (Barclay, Gift, 441–42). Cf. perhaps 2 Cor. 12:18.

. Weeber, “Recreation,” 425; O’Sullivan, “Walking.”

. O’Sullivan, “Mind”; cf. O’Sullivan, “Walking.”

. E.g., Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5c, p. 28.8; 2.7.5g, p. 32.5; 2.7.11e, p. 68.14–15.

. Dunn, Galatians, 295; Hultgren, Romans, 248, following Holloway, ΠΕΡΙΠΑΤΕΩ.

. E.g., LXX Deut. 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; Lev. 26:3; Mic. 4:2.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 244; de Boer, Galatians, 351.

. E.g., LXX Prov. 8:20; 1 En. 91:19; 94:1; Jub. 21:2; 25:10; 4Q416 f2.iii.10; cf. 1QS 3.9; 5.10; 6.2; 9.8–9, 19; CD 2.15–16; 7.4–5. Cf. also walking with God in Gen. 5:22; 6:9; 17:1; 24:40; 48:15; cf. 3:8; though some later rabbis construed this as simply good works (cf. Meirovich, “Crisis”).

. E.g., Lev. 26:3; 1 Kings 6:12; 2 Kings 10:31; Neh. 10:29; Ps. 78:10; Ezek. 20:19; CD 7.6–7; 11Q19 54.17; 59.16. Despite these references, it was probably not yet primarily legal in sense at Qumran (Green, “Halakhah”).

. E.g., Exod. 18:20; Deut. 26:17; 30:16; Josh. 22:5; 1 Kings 2:3; 1QS 2.2; 3.20; 4.15; CD 2.15–16; 1QpHab 12.22, 25; 4Q266 f2.i.4. Contrast walking in evil ways, 1QS 3.21; 4.11; CD 8.9; 1QpHab 11.13.

. E.g., Urbach, Sages, 1:3; Strack, Introduction, 6.

. 1QS 3.18; cf. 4.6, 12; cf. Duhaime, “Voies.” On the two spirits, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (cf. 1 John 4:6; T. Jud. 20:1–2), see also 4Q544 f1.10–12, f2.13–14; Tigchelaar, “Names.”

. CD 2.15–16.

. Bligh, Galatians, 447–62. Draper (“Ways”) even thinks that Paul echoes an early form of the Two Ways material later found in Did. 1–6.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 8.3; 27.4; Plutarch, Demosth. 26.5; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 30; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 14.1–2; Athenaeus, Deipn. 10.77; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 42; Thom, “Akousmata,” 106; after death, Virgil, Aen. 6.540–43; Cicero, Tusc. 1.30.72. Cf. Aune, Rhetoric, 478.

. For two moral ways, see Deut. 30:15; Ps. 1:1; 4Q473 f2.3; m. ʾAbot 2:9; T. Ash. 1:3, 5; regarding future judgment, 4 Ezra 7:3–16, 60–61; 8:1–3; T. Ab. 11:3–7 A; 8:10–11 B; ʾAbot R. Nat. 25A.

. Did. 1:1–6:2; Barn. 18:1–21:9; see Kraft, Barnabas and Didache, 134–62. Still later, cf. Qur’an 57.13.

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 4:2; m. Qidd. 1:10; Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; 45.1.2; ʾAbot R. Nat. 16A; b. Ber. 5a; b. B. Bat. 16a; b. Qidd. 30b; b. Sukkah 52b; b. Yebam. 103b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5; Sup. 3:2; Tg. Eccl. 10:4.

. 4 Macc. 2:23; von Gemünden, “Culture des passions”; Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 531–34; deSilva, Readings, 15–18, 257, 261–62 (cf. Galatians, 21), citing 4 Macc. 1:1, 13–17; Campbell, Deliverance, 564; cf. T. Ash. 3:2. Cf. law suppressing passions in Aristotle, Pol. 3.11.4, 1287a.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 246; Pretorius, “Opposition”; Martyn, Galatians, 305; Keener, Mind, 117–20. For recontextualization of the principle for modern Asian religion, see Hansen, Galatians, 42.

. See Ladd, Theology, 413; Cho, Spirit, 11, 52–109. Some gentiles envisioned the activity of divine “spirit” but understood that activity differently than did most Jews; see, e.g., Nock, Christianity, 51; Büchsel, Geist, 45–53; Isaacs, Spirit, 17; Keener, Acts, 1:530–32.

. See Cicero, Tusc. 5.28.82 (Stoics); Seneca Y., Lucil. 30.11; 66.39; Ben. 5.8.2, 5; 7.19.5; Dial. 1.4.15; 6.7.1; 7.13.1; 8.5.1, 8; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 14, p. 92.6–8; 17, p. 106.21–22; 17, p. 108.1–2, 7, 26; 17, p. 110.12–13; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.1.17; 1.6.15; 1.12.17, 19; 1.26.2; 4.11.9–18; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.6, p. 38.3–14; 2.7.7a, p. 42.31–35; 2.7.7e, p. 48.2–10; 2.7.8a, p. 52.25–26; 2.7.10a, p. 58.2–5; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 1.9.1; 1.17.5; 2.9, 11, 12, 16, 17; 3.1; 3.2.2; 3.9; 3.12; 4.1, 5, 9; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.88; Watson, “Natural Law”; Long, Philosophy, 120, 148–49, 188; Annas, “Ethics”; for Cynics, see Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 7; cf. 4 Macc. 5:25. Stoics were, however, more committed to reason and logic than to nature; see Seneca Y., Lucil. 118.12; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 21, p. 128.11–17; Liu, “Nature.”

. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 41.1–5; 73.16; Nat. 1.pref.14; Porphyry, Marc. 19.314–16; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 2.10, 23; Unchangeable 46–48; Dreams 1.140. Cf. the early Stoic conception that reason reflects universal Reason, or Logos (Cicero, Nat. d. 2.6–8.18–20; cf. further 2.8.21–13.32; Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 31; Iamblichus, Myst. 1.15). For the contrast between Paul and a Stoic here, see Sevenster, Seneca, 81–82.

. See Sedley, “Debate,” 151.

. Cf. Augustine and Chrysostom in O’Donovan, “Flesh and Spirit,” 275–78. Augustine notes that his experience shaped his views of Gal. 5:17 (Augustine, Conf. 8.5.11).

. O’Donovan, “Flesh and Spirit,” 272.

. Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 5:16 (Levy).

. John Cassian, Conferences 4.11.1. See also Origen, Cels. 8.23; Princ. 1.3.4; 3.2.3; 3.4.1–5 (Longenecker, Galatians, xlvii).

. Augustine, Comm. Gal. (CSEL 84:122). But cf. O’Donovan, “Flesh and Spirit,” 275–78.

. Bruno the Carthusian on Gal. 5:17 (Levy).

. See in some detail Keener, Mind; Keener, “Perspectives.”

. E.g., Polybius, Hist. 31.25.8; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 7, p. 56.27; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.34; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.10, p. 56.9–18; 2.7.10b, p. 58.17–31; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 24.4; Galen, Grief 43; 80; Porphyry, Marc. 27.438.

. E.g., Xenophon, Apol. 16; Plato, Phaed. 66CD; Socratics, Ep. 14; Plutarch, Bride 33 (Mor. 142E).

. See similary Moule, Idiom Book, 39–40, on 1 John 2:16.

. On the use of antithesis in ancient perusasion, see Anderson, Glossary, 21–22.

. Philo, Heir 57, from deSilva, Readings, 264.

. I adapt here material also used in Keener, Mind, 100–108.

. Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 2.2; cf. Plutarch, Pleas. Life 14 (Mor. 1096E); Porphyry, Marc. 9.172–73; 10.176–83; 29.453–57.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.2; 2.23.30; 3.7.2–3; cf. Plutarch, R. Col. 27 (Mor. 1122D).

. Rom. 8:4–6, 9, 13; Gal. 3:3; 4:29; 5:16–17; 6:8; Phil. 3:3; cf. Rom. 7:14; 1 Cor. 3:1. Sometimes in contrasts with the Spirit, σάρξ (sarx) refers simply to the body (John 3:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:6), as also when the contrasted spirit is human (Mark 14:38; 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 7:1; Col. 2:5; 2 Clem. 14.5; Ignatius, Magn. 13.1; Trall. pref.; 12.1; Phld. 11.2; Smyrn. 1.1; Pol. 5.1).

. Cf. similarly Isa. 31:3, though here the mortals are horses. This differs from the common use for “flesh” and the “breath [rûaḥ] of life” (Gen. 6:17; 7:15; Num. 16:22; 27:16; cf. Job 4:15; Ezek. 21:7; 37:6, 8), in which “spirit” (rûaḥ) may represent the idea of an animating force.

. E.g., 1 En. 102:5; Apocr. Ezek. 1–2; t. Sanh. 13:2; Sipre Deut. 306.28.2; later, cf. Gen. Rab. 8:11.

. E.g., Let. Aris. 236; Wis. 9:15; Philo, Creation 67; Alleg. Interp. 2.22; Sacrifices 9; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.203; Ant. 6.3; 13.317; 18.117, 333; 19.325; J.W. 1.84; 3.272, 278; 7.345; T. Job 20:3; cf. Keener, Mind, 274–78.

. Baumgärtel, “Flesh”; Davies, Paul, 18.

. See Frey, “Antithese”; Flusser, Judaism, 64–65. Pryke (“Spirit and Flesh,” 358) understands it as good versus evil spirits.

. Meyer, “Flesh”; Driver, Scrolls, 532; Wilcox, “Dualism,” 94–95; Best, Temptation, 52; esp. Flusser, Judaism, 62–65. See 1QS 3.8; 4.20–21; 9.9; 11.9, 12; 1QM 4.3; 12.12; 1QHa 15.40; CD 1.2; 4Q511 f28–29.4; 4Q511 f48–49 + 51.4; Sir. 17:31.

. For flesh as humanity, e.g., Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 1:16; for weakness, e.g., Rom. 6:19; 8:3; 1 Cor. 7:28; 2 Cor. 1:17; 5:16; 7:5; Gal. 4:13–14; for mortality, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Cor. 4:11; Phil. 1:22, 24. Sheldon (Mystery Religions, 79) cited OT language as more relevant than the mysteries.

. Dunn (Romans, 1:370) correctly notes that “it is precisely the weakness and appetites of ‘the mortal body’ (= the flesh) which are the occasion for sin.” Likewise, “The problem with flesh is not that it is sinful per se but that it is vulnerable to the enticements of sin—flesh, we might say, as ‘the desiring I’ ([Rom.] 7.7–12)” (Dunn, Theology of Paul, 67).

. Unlike Seneca, Paul uses “Spirit” to refer to God’s Spirit in Christ, not a shared possession of humanity (Sevenster, Seneca, 79–80); Paul thinks not of “two ‘parts’” of people but rather of “two modes of existence” that characterize the old aeon and the new aeon (Ridderbos, Paul, 66).

. E.g., Xenophon, Apol. 16; Plato, Phaed. 66CD; 83CD; Cicero, Rep. 6.26.29; Seneca Y., Dial. 2.16.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.115; 13.13; Socratics, Ep. 14; Plutarch, Is. Os. 78 (Mor. 382F); Aeschines, Tim. 191; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 7.7; 11.10; 33.7; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.26; Proclus, Poet. essay 6, book 1, K121.14–15; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 31.205; Ep. 3, frg. 2 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.45); Porphyry, Marc. 14.243–44; 33.506–7; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.161. Cf. matter in Iamblichus, Anim. 8.39, §385; Ep. 3, frg. 4.5–6 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.47).

. Maximus of Tyre, Or. 33.7; cf. 6.1, 4; 41.5; see also Epictetus, Diatr. 1.3.3; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.145.20; cf. Sipre Deut. 306.28.2. For the true nature of deity being intelligence rather than “flesh” (σάρξ), see Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.2. For passions versus reason ruling lower animals, see, e.g., Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.13, 1254b. Philosophy thus converts a person from a beast into a god (Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 4.16).

. E.g., Plato, Gorg. 493AE; Phaed. 82E; Crat. 400B; Heraclitus, Ep. 5; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 7.5 (recalling Plato, Resp. 514A–516B); 36.4; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 7.26; Iamblichus, Ep. 3, frg. 2 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.5.45); for others see, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.11–12.

. E.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 8.7.ext. 5; Seneca Y., Lucil. 8.5; Sent. Sextus 139ab.

. E.g., Philo, Alleg. Interpr. 2.28; Sacrifices 48; Posterity 96, 155; Unchangeable 111; Agriculture 64; Planting 43; Abraham 164; Moses 2.24; T. Jud. 14:3; 19:4.

. Philo, Heir 267–69, in Stuhlmacher, Romans, 109; see further Wolfson, Philo, 1:433.

. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.108; Unchangeable 150; Confusion 78–79; Spec. Laws 4.188; cf. Alleg. Interp. 3.21; Heir 85; so also the Christian work Diognetus (6.5).

. Philo, Giants 29–31.

. 4 Macc. 7:18.

. Thus the association between the body and sin in Rom. 6:6; 8:10, 13; cf. 7:24. Contrast Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 5.17, after Platonism became more prevalent. Cf. Augustine, Cont. 18 (Edwards): “The spirit is good and the flesh too is good. And the whole person who consists of both, one ruling and one obeying, is indeed good.”

. E.g., Marcus, “Inclination in Paul”; de Boer, Galatians, 337.

. Davies, Paul, 340. See, e.g., ʾAbot R. Nat. 16A; 16, §36B; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 3:2.

. Urbach, Sages, 1:472.

. See discussion in Keener, Mind, 85–88.

. This sentence is directly from Keener, Mind, 107.

. See Keener, Mind.

. Martyn, Galatians, 534–35. This is consistent with the present imperative tense of περιπατεῖτε (peripateite) (cf. BDF §336; Wallace, Grammar, 722) but cannot be inferred from it (Wallace, Grammar, 716–17).

. With, e.g., Hays, “Galatians,” 325. For future negation with the aorist subjunctive, as here, see BDF §365; it may negate even the possibility of something (see Wallace, Grammar, 468–69). Some question whether this double negation is still truly emphatic in Koine (see Moule, Idiom Book, 22), but it seems applicable in most NT instances (though falsification would be difficult).

. Cf. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:16 (Bray): “The spiritual person is not free from the lusts of the flesh but he does not let them control him, which is what gratifying their desires amounts to.”

. Wallace, Grammar, 469n61, 723. Cf. also LXX Gen. 19:8; Lev. 18:30; 26:3, 14; but it is a conditional statement in Jer. 22:5.

. E.g., Rom. 12:2, 14, 16, 21; 14:20; 1 Cor. 4:5; 7:5, 23, 27; 10:7, 10, 28; 14:20, 39; 15:33; Gal. 5:1; 6:7.

. Wallace, Grammar, 468–69.

. Τελέω (teleō) appears after a double negation in the second-person plural aorist subjunctive—the same form as in Gal. 5:16—in Matt. 10:23. Cf. πληρόω (plēroō) in Eph. 3:19; Col. 1:9.

. E.g., Lambrecht, “Right Things,” 520; Hays, “Galatians,” 325; Buscemi, Lettera, 549.

. Rom. 4:8; 1 Cor. 8:13; 1 Thess. 4:15; 5:3 (admittedly none in the second person); Witherington, Grace, 393, following Lutjens, “Galatians 5:17,” 111; citing also Luke 6:37; though differently, contrast Did. 4.13. With the second person, see also Job 5:19–24; Matt. 23:39 // Luke 13:35; Matt. 5:20, 26; 13:14; 16:28; 18:3; Luke 6:37; 12:59; 22:67–68; John 4:48; Acts 13:41 (Paul in Galatia); 28:26; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rev. 3:3; 1 Clem. 56.11; Barn. 17.2; 19.2. Even John 13:8; Did. 4.13; and Barn. 19.4–7 may fit this pattern grammatically, despite their generally imperative sense.

. With the second-person aorist subjunctive, see also Sir. 7:3; 9:13; 11:10; 22:13; 29:23; Prov. 27:22.

. This may also include prayers, when tempted, for God to transform desires; Zahl, “Drama,” 352.

. Fee, Galatians, 210.

. Lambrecht (“Galatians 5,17”) even contends that it is parenthetical between 5:16 and 5:18. Others (including O. Hofius, whom he critiques) view just 5:17bc as parenthetical (Kilgallen, “Strivings”; Lutjens, “Galatians 5:17”).

. Cf. Fee, Galatians, 210: the Spirit will generate the right desires. In the Greek text of 5:17, the verb ἐπιθυμεῖ (epithumei) is only implicit with the Spirit; Paul perhaps is less explicit here because of the negative connotations of the cognate noun “desire” (ἐπιθυμία [epithumia]) in 5:16, 24 (cf. Rom. 1:24; 6:12; 7:7–8; 13:14; 1 Thess. 4:5; though not in Phil. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:17); he employs the verb negatively in his other undisputed uses, including reference to Exod. 20:17 // Deut. 5:21 in Rom. 7:7; 13:9; and perhaps to Num. 11:4 in 1 Cor. 10:6 (cf. Fee, Galatians, 210n13).

. Barclay, Obeying, 112; Matera, Galatians, 200, 207; Schreiner, Galatians, 343; cf. Dunn, Galatians, 298.

. Barclay, Obeying, 112; more emphatically, Martyn, Galatians, 493, citing Polycarp, Phil. 5.3, to which may be added (albeit referring to flesh and the human soul) 1 Pet. 2:11 and Diogn. 6.5. Engberg-Pedersen (Paul and Stoics, 163) refers to “a battle of forces at a . . . ‘mythical’ level.”

. Martyn (Galatians, 494) cites Rashi’s understanding of b. Ber. 5a, but Rashi writes in the eleventh century.

. Truth and error are abominable to each other (1QS 4.17–18); the conscience must incline toward either the spirit of truth or the spirit of error (T. Jud. 20:1–2).

. Martyn, Galatians, 495; Oakes, Galatians, 174.

. With Matera, Galatians, 199; Zahl, “Drama,” 335; cf. Kruse, Romans, 330.

. See, e.g., Gorgias, Hel. 6–8; Pliny E., Nat. 33.21.66; John 16:8; further discussion at Gal. 5:16–18.

. Summarizing views, de Boer (Galatians, 354) asks, “Does this clause indicate purpose (Burton; Mussner; Dunn; Witherington; Vouga) or result (Lightfoot; Betz; Martyn)?” Longenecker (Galatians, 246) argues that the final clause refers to the purpose of the Spirit and that of the flesh, rather than to a divine purpose in the conflict.

. See more detailed summaries in Barclay, Obeying, 112–15; Lambrecht, “Right Things,” 517–20; Schreiner, Galatians, 343–44; Moo, Galatians, 355–56; and particularly thoroughly Aletti, “Exhortations,” 323–30.

. Burton, Galatians, 300–302; Betz, Galatians, 279–80.

. Paul certainly would agree that only the Spirit can enable the believer to fulfill his or her good wishes; see Augustine, Ep. Gal. 46 (1B.5.17; Edwards); Lambrecht, “Right Things,” 524; Matera, Galatians, 206–7. Taking 5:17bc as parenthetical, see Kilgallen, “Strivings”; Lutjens, “Galatians 5:17”; as one serious possibility, Das, Galatians, 565. Lambrecht (“Right Things”) sees 5:16, 18, overruling the parenthetical hypothesis of 5:17.

. So Chrysostom (according to Moo); cf. de Boer, Galatians, 355. Cf. the idea of inspiration by the divine Spirit rather than human will or power (2 Pet. 1:21; Josephus, Ant. 4.118); cf. the Spirit’s (wind’s) willing in John 3:8.

. Note here, e.g., Lambrecht, “Right Things,” 522.

. Barclay, Obeying, 115; Barclay, Gift, 428; as a plausible view, Das, Galatians, 566; cf. Aletti, “Exhortations,” 326–31.

. Cf. the incapability of the fleshly mind to please God in Rom. 8:7–8.

. Moo, Galatians, 356 (attributing this approach to Barclay; Dunn; Engberg-Pedersen; Mussner; R. Longenecker; and himself).

. Plato, Lys. 207E–208A, cited in Aletti, “Exhortations,” 326.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 4.1.2–5. Some see what is right but are overpowered by passion (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.10a, pp. 56.24–58.16).

. Plutarch, Lect. 1 (Mor. 37E) (trans. B. Perrin, LCL, 1:205–7), using a different term for “willing.” Irrational impulses, Plutarch continues, do not support freedom of will. For one discussion regarding the will in antiquity and in Paul, cf. Löhr, “Wille.”

. Maximus of Tyre, Or. 38.6.

. Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 618: in Gal. 5:17, one can choose the Spirit, hence fulfill 5:16, 18, 22–24; otherwise one is divided as in 5:19–21.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 20.6; 52.1–9 (the latter in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 62); Maximus of Tyre, Or. 34.2; also the two souls in Xenophon, Cyr. 6.1.41; perhaps Heraclitus, Ep. 9.

. E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 4.10.25

. Especially in the Platonic tradition; see Philo, Creation 81; Iamblichus, Ep. 9.4–5, 7, 10 (Stobaeus, Anth. 2.33.15); Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 529, 538; Wasserman, “Philosophers,” 82.

. See Seneca Y., Dial. 9.2.10; the ideal virtuous/wise person in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 52; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 613.

. ʾAbot R. Nat. 32A.

. Combs, “Nature.”

. Cf. Dalton, Proclamation, 131.

. Cf. Augustine, Nat. Gr. 61 (Edwards); Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:17–18; Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:17–18; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 5:18 (Bray); Hansen, Galatians, 181; Ridderbos, Epistle, 204. Still, this is not intended as license: “The flesh will provoke you . . . resist it by the Spirit” (Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:17).

. Hansen, Galatians, 170; Toussaint, “Contrast” (though he sees Rom. 7 as the believer under the law [311–12]); Gundry, “Frustration,” 239 (actualities in Rom. 7 versus purposes in Gal. 5:17).

. The majority view; see, e.g., Ambrosiaster, Comm. Paul’s Epistles (Rom. 7:14; CSEL 81:233–35; Bray, Romans, 190); Pseudo-Constantius, Rom. 7:14, 25 (ENPK 49, 52; Bray, Romans, 191, 199); Das, Debate, 204–14; Deissmann, Paul, 178–79; Kümmel, Römer 7; Bornkamm, Paul, 125; Ridderbos, Paul, 126–28; Dahl, Studies, 111; Gundry, “Frustration,” 238; Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 443; Achtemeier, “Reflections”; Achtemeier, Romans, 120–26; Fee, Paul, Spirit, People, 134–35; Byrne, Romans, 226; Hübner, “Hermeneutics,” 207; Talbert, Romans, 188–91; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 115; Aletti, “Rm 7.7–25”; Keck, Romans, 180; Watson, Gentiles, 289; Matera, Romans, 167; Lamp, “Rhetoric”; discussion in Keener, Mind, 55–112.

. Cf. Matera, Galatians, 207.

. This is a first-class conditional sentence; see Longenecker, Galatians, 246; Witherington, Grace, 396.

. With Dunn, Galatians, 301. “The ‘under’-language seems contextually related to the motif of authority and ‘slavery’” (Barclay, Gift, 431n22).

. With Augustine, Nat. Gr. 67 (Edwards); Hansen, Galatians, 110; cf. also Marshall, “Understanding,” 58.

. With various terms reflecting the same semantic domain, see, e.g., Rom. 2:19; 1 Thess. 4:14; 2 Tim. 3:6; 4:11; LXX Ezra 8:1; 1 Macc. 4:2; 5:15; Pss. Sol. 17:41; Philo, Abraham 229; Josephus, Ant. 6.362; 12.305; Ag. Ap. 1.76, 253; 2.50, 114; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.12.3; Qumran’s teacher in CD 1.11; 4Q266f2.i.14–15; cf. further Forestell, “Paraclete,” 171–72. Though compare the pillar of fire or cloud in Wis. 18:3; Philo, Moses 1.178; Necessity in Josephus, Ant. 1.217.

. See, e.g., Longenecker, Galatians, 246; Schweizer, Church as Body, 59; Fee, Presence, 839–42; Fee, “Christology and Pneumatology”; Watson, “Identity”; Grieb, “People of God”; Thiselton, Corinthians, 934. Using different terms, cf. Wisdom as leader or God leading into wisdom in Wis. 7:15; 9:11; God leading in Epictetus, Diatr. 2.7.11; 3.21.12; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 5.27; cf. reason’s guidance as divine guidance in Plutarch, Lect. 1 (Mor. 37E); education in Socrates, Ep. 4; the angel of peace in T. Benj. 6:1. In Philo, Moses 2.265, the divine spirit guides the mind to walk in the way of truth.

. With Matera (Galatians, 207), who adds that it also includes the element of cooperation. Cf. Bruce, Galatians, 245.

. E.g., in Exod. 3:1; Isa. 11:6; 63:12–14; Acts 9:8; 22:11.

. Kruse, Romans, 337. Cf. Ps. 32:8.

. Barclay, Obeying, 71. Cf. living “according to the teaching of the Holy Spirit” (Pseudo-Constantius, Rom. 8:14 [Bray]).

. Cranfield, Romans, 1:395, on Rom. 8:14’s introductory “for” (γάρ, gar); Moo, Romans, 499.

. See Wis. 9:11.

. Pelagius, Comm. Rom., on Rom. 8:14 (Bray); Hansen, Galatians, 172; Dunn, Romans, 1:450; Moo, Romans, 498; Schreiner, Romans, 422.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 14 (Bray), warning against losing “the honor of your adoption.”

. Dunn, Galatians, 300; Dunn, Romans, 1:450; for this usage for “led” in Greek sources, see also Jewett, Romans, 496. Musonius Rufus (Lect. 17, p. 103.3) speaks of one’s own nature “leading” one.

. Cf. Betz, Galatians, 281; Dunn, Romans, 1:450; Jewett, Romans, 496.

. Cf. further discussion in, e.g., Thiselton, Spirit; Keener, Mind; Keener, “Spirit,” esp. 494–95; Keener, Gift, 17–50, esp. 69–87.

. Cf. God “putting” something in one’s heart (Neh. 2:12; 7:5), although this is not called “led.”

. Schreiner, Romans, 422; cf. Moo, Romans, 498 (noting that many ancient interpreters did see guidance here). Moo (Romans, 498–99) does allow for an “inner compulsion.”

. Some of this will operate through a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2–4; 2 Cor. 5:16–17; Phil. 4:7–8), but this mind trusts God ordering one’s life (Rom. 8:28–30; Eph. 5:20; 1 Thess. 5:18) and is not isolated from the activity of the Spirit (Rom. 8:5–7; 1 Cor. 2:10–16); cf. Keener, Mind.

. With Thomas Aquinas (Lecture 3) on Rom. 8:14 (Levy, Krey, and Ryan), citing Phil. 2:13.

. See further 1QS 3.7; 4.21; 4Q255 f2.1; 4Q257 3.10; Coppens, “Don,” 211–12, 222; Puech, “L’Esprit”; Johnston, “Spirit,” 40; Hur, Reading, 230; Keener, “Pneumatology,” 65–69.

. Cf. Num. 11:25–26; Joel 2:28; Sir. 48:24; Jub. 31:12; 1 En. 91:1; 1QS 8.16; Philo, Flight 186; Josephus, Ant. 6.166; L.A.B. 28:6; 4 Ezra 14:22; Sipre Deut. 22.1.2; t. Pisha 2:15; see further Best, “Pneuma,” 222–25; Menzies, Empowered, 49–101; Menzies, Development, 53–112; Turner, Power, 86–104 (including inspired wisdom and praise); Keener, Spirit, 10–13, 31–33; Keener, Acts, 1:534–37. In Paul, e.g., Dunn, “Spirit Speech,” 82.

. E.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.10; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.16.42; y. Moʿed Qaṭ. 3:7, §11. Note that in all these references I include the entire semantic domain, not exclusively the word ἄγω (agō), which appears here. Agō can mean simply “bring” as in, e.g., T. Ab. 16:5 A; 10, 12 B.

. E.g., Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 1.4.1; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 8.7.

. Ps. 5:8 (LXX 5:9); 25:5 (LXX 24:5); 27:11 (LXX 26:11); 31:3 (LXX 30:4); 43:3 (LXX 42:3, in this instance using the same term as in Gal. 5:18). This might be the origin of the Quaker (Hamm, “Quaker Speak”) and other evangelical language of “leadings” for divine guidance through unexpected insights.

. Thomas Aquinas (Lecture 3) on Rom. 8:14 (Levy, Krey, and Ryan).

. There may not be a specific allusion here, but the idea that Paul “avoided” citing Ps. 143:10 when he cited Ps. 143:2 in Gal. 2:16 (Das, Stories, 178) argues far too much from silence. The suggestion by Das (Stories, 178) that an allusion to Ps. 143:10 would imply the law (based on 143:8), and that Paul thereby would subvert his opponents’ appeal to the law, could fit the context of Gal. 5:18 but rests on threads of evidence that are quite slender.

. E.g., Gen. 25:22; Num. 27:21; Judg. 20:23, 27; 1 Sam. 9:9; 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 5:19, 23; 1 Kings 22:5, 7; 1 Chron. 14:10, 14; 2 Chron. 34:21; Jer. 10:21; Zeph. 1:6.

. With Grieb, Story, 79; Silva, “Galatians,” 810; Oakes, Galatians, 175; in greatest detail, Wilder, Echoes. For Rom. 8:12–17 drawing on exodus, see, e.g., Hahn, Romans, 137; in greatest detail, Keesmaat, Paul and Story. Jewish readers also used exodus typology; see, e.g., Bock, “Scripture and Realisation,” 47.

. As part of Matthew’s clear exodus typology, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 108, 136–38; for Moses, see Allison, Moses, 165–72; cf. 2:16, 20.

. Exod. 13:18, 21; 15:13, 22; Deut. 8:2; Neh. 9:12; Pss. 77:20; 78:14, 52; 106:9; 136:16; Isa. 48:21; Jer. 2:6, 17; 23:8; Hosea 11:2–4; Amos 2:10; Acts 13:17; Wis. 10:17–18; Bar. 2:11; 1 En. 89:22, 24; 4 Ezra 14:4; Sib. Or. 3.255. For the Spirit’s presence and the exodus, see Isa. 63:10–11, 14; Hag. 2:5; Mek. Shir. 7.17–18; Ruth Rab. 2:1.

. Pss. Sol. 17:40–41; Pesiq. Rab. 30:2.

. See Wilder, Echoes. Although I usually agree with Das’s critiques, I believe that his critique here (Das, Stories, 154–61), although rightly noting lack of verbal precision in the linkages and challenging some overambitious connections, dismisses too much evidence, given the interlocking of exodus motifs in Rom. 8:14–17. As noted above and elsewhere (e.g., Keener, Spirit, 8–13, 30–33), the Spirit is also associated with moral purification and inspiration but, when conjoined with the language of “led,” offers additional nuances. Das (Stories, 177) does allow the possibility of a Pauline echo of LXX Isa. 63:14 in Gal. 5:18, as long as it is not understood to “entail a ‘second exodus’ or Exodus/wilderness cloud motif.”

. With Barclay, Obeying, 116; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 299. Paul’s ethic in Galatians is thus not new in content but rather in the theological basis for ethics; see Lategan, “Ethics,” 318–28.

. With Fee, Galatians, 208.

. With Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 5:18 (Levy); Betz, Galatians, 164; cf. 1 Tim. 1:9; see discussion at Gal. 5:23. Conceptions of natural law may also be relevant here and also circulated widely in Paul’s milieu; see, e.g., Mitsis, “Origin,” 163–64.

. See Fee, Galatians, 124; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3, 6.

. Martyn (Galatians, 497) suggests that Paul’s opponents claim that he failed to teach them morality adequately; this proposal is speculative but not implausible.

. Paul may not wish to push this connection too far; he could have augmented it by wording “do such things” (5:21 NRSV) to conform to the quotation in 3:12, but he does not.

. E.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. 2.8.1–8, 1108b–1109a; Eth. eud. 2.3.4, 1220b–1221a; Virt. vit. 1249a–1251b; Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.11–14; Cicero, Scaur. 16.37; Phil. 3.6.15; 3.11.28; Cael. 22.55; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.27–29; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11e, p. 68.12–20; 1QS 4.3–11; occasionally in letters, Fronto, Nep. am. 2.8.

. As often noted, e.g., López, “Vice List,” 54, 59.

. With Moo, Galatians, 357.

. E.g., Theon, Progymn. 9.21–24; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5a, p. 10.14–15; 2.7.5f, p. 30.23, 33; 2.7.10b, p. 60.1–2; 2.7.10e, p. 62.16; 2.7.11e, p. 68.12.

. E.g., Jer. 7:9; Ezek. 18:6–8, 11–13; Hosea 4:2; Wis. 14:22–27 (esp. 14:25–26); Philo, Posterity 52. Cf. also eschatological vice lists (1QS 4.9–11; Sib. Or. 2.255–82; T. Levi 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; for gentile equivalents, Hesiod, Op. 181–201; Lucian, Men. 11–12).

. E.g., Seneca Y., Dial. 9.2.10–12 (in a chain, as in James 1:14–15); Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.23; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b, pp. 12–13.2–12; 2.7.10b, pp. 58.32–60.1; 2.7.10b, pp. 60–61.1–7; 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.14–19; 2.7.11e, pp. 68–69.17–20; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.93. Stated negatively, cf., e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 40.17–22.

. E.g., Plato, Leg. 1.649D; Aristotle, Eth. eud. 2.3.4, 1220b–1221a; Virt. vit. 1249a–1251b; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 36; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 43; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 17.78.

. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 36, 1442a.13–14; Cicero, Pis. 27.66; Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22, 25; Cael. 22.55; Phil. 3.11.28; 8.5.16; Mur. 6.14 (negated); Pseudo-Cicero, Invect. Sall. 6.18; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.13; 3.53; 4.126; 8.8; 32.28, 91; 33.23, 55; 34.19; Fronto, Nep. am. 2.8; Lucian, Posts 4; Charon 11, 15; Tim. 28; Nigr. 17; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 5.7; 36.2.

. Philo, Sacrifices 32.

. With, e.g., Sanders, Law and People, 109; Sanders, Paul, 558–59. Sanders notes this characteristic in rabbinic sources and derives the phrase “homiletical damnation” from Moore, Judaism, 2:388n4.

. See discussion in Sanders, Paul, 338–41.

. I borrow this material on vice lists from Keener, Acts, 3:2269–70.

. See more fully Aune, Rhetoric, 89–91; Nock, Christianity, 100; Deissmann, Light, 316; Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices.”

. With Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:19; Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:20; Erasmus Sarcerius, Ann. Gal., on Gal. 5:22 (Bray); deSilva, Galatians, 463.

. Cf. also the suggested arrangements of vices and virtues in Melbourne, “Order.”

. See discussion in Loader, Sexuality; briefly (and somewhat differently regarding divorce), Keener, “Adultery.”

. This and similar arrangements are often noted; Lightfoot, Galatians, 210; Witherington, Grace, 397; Udoette, “Works”; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 289. Ramsay (Galatians, 446–47) preferred three categories.

. Like idolatry, sorcery was also a pagan custom (Deut. 18:9–10). Philo (Cherubim 92) includes attention to “sex and alcohol” (Sanders, Paul, 356).

. With Sanders, Paul, 297, 335, 339–42; here, Matera, Galatians, 209; Witherington, Grace, 391–92; cf. Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3.594–600, 757–66; Wis. 14:12–31; T. Naph. 3:3; CD 12.9; 1QpHab 4.9–14; 12.13; 1Q22 f1.i.7; 4Q169 f3–4.iii.1; 4Q269 f8.ii.2; 4Q271 f2.9; 4Q385a f18.ii.9; m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1; Sipra ʾAḥ. M. par. 8.193.1.7; y. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1, §3.

. The recurrence of issues in Rom. 13:12–14 and 2 Cor. 12:20–21 suggests that Paul deemed these to be key issues (de Boer, Galatians, 358).

. With Barclay, Obeying, 153; Barclay, Gift, 432–33; Matera, Galatians, 209; cf. Oakes, Galatians, 176.

. Aune, Environment, 195. Still, they do appear among gentiles, as in, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.19.

. With Erasmus Sarcerius, Ann. Gal., on Gal. 5:19 (Bray).

. Citing Bligh, Galatians in Greek, 203, Witherington (Grace, 400) notes that “abstract nouns could be made concrete by using them in the plural”; cf. also Das, Galatians, 572, citing Turner, Syntax, 27–28.

. Paul also omits all conjunctions, which was a common practice in many lists; see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.30.41; Rowe, “Style,” 136; an example in Rhet. Alex. 36.1442a.11–14.

. Cf. Matt. 23:27; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.11.5.

. Also in LXX Lev. 20:21; T. Jos. 4:6; Barn. 10.8; perhaps 19.4. The evidence is too general to support limited application to homosexual behavior (as in Miller, “References”).

. So Dunn, Galatians, 303. It is probably sexual in the vice lists in Wis. 14:26 and 1 Pet. 4:3; it is sexual in Josephus, Ant. 16.185 (and the cognate verb in 17.121; the adjective in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.244); Heraclitus, Hom. Prob. 77.11; probably also 2 Pet. 2:18; something obscene in Josephus, Ant. 20.112. Some other references are nonsexual or ambiguous; see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 4.151; 8.252, 318; T. Levi 17:11; T. Jud. 23:1.

. With, e.g., Fee, Galatians, 214; deSilva, Readings, 266.

. Cf. Tob. 14:6; 1 Macc. 3:48; Wis. 14:11; 15:15.

. LXX Exod. 7:11, 22; 8:3, 14 (ET 8:7, 18); cf. Egyptians in Wis. 18:13; Canaanites in Wis. 12:4; fallen angels in 1 En. 9:6–7.

. Cf. Homer, Od. 10.212–13, 235–36, 290, 317, 326; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.45.3; Justin, Epit. 12.14.6, 9 (cf. arrows in 12.10.2–3); Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.2.59; Quintilian, Decl. 385.5; Yamauchi, “Aphrodisiacs,” esp. 61. Cf. magical herbs in Apuleius, Apol. 30–31, 40; Flor. 15.17; Chrysovergi, “Instruction”; deSilva (Readings, 266; cf. deSilva, Galatians, 460–61) suggests also drugs “used to manipulate one’s state of consciousness, opening one up to the spirit world.” For poisons, e.g., Euripides, Andr. 355; Gorgias, Hel. 14; Quintilian, Decl. 246; 319; 321; 377; 379.3; 380; 381; Josephus, Ant. 4.279; T. Jos. 5:1.

. See Longenecker, “Formed.” Possibly, given the frequent use of spirits in ancient magical texts (cf. T. Jud. 23:1), cf. even some of the spirits the Galatians once invoked (Gal. 4:8). See discussion of “magic” at Gal. 3:1.

. As in Matt. 12:24–28; so Dunn, Galatians, 304; see Keener, Spirit, 104–9. Since sorcery often manipulated spirits, some Reformers highlighted its demonic aspect (see Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 3:1; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 3:1 [Bray]); given Paul’s harsh condemnation, they also believed that it could harm (Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:20; Johannes Brenz, Explanation of Galatians, on Gal. 5:20; John Prime, Exposition of Galatians, on Gal. 5:20 [Bray]).

. Grant, Paul, 114, regarding abortive and seductive drugs, on Paulus in Justinian, Dig. 48.19.38.5. On magic being associated with the private domain, see, e.g., Rives, Religion, 20, 172.

. See Barclay, Gift, 433–34, emphasizing the honor dynamic and citing Lendon, Empire, and Barton, Honor; see esp. Marshall, Enmity. For the dangers of strife, see also, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.8; for her personification, see, e.g., Homer, Il. 4.442; Cypria 1.

. E.g., Cicero, Phil. 8.5.16; Prov. cons. 1.2; Plutarch, On the Control of Anger (Mor. 452F–464D) (entire essay); Educ. 14 (Mor. 10B); Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.70; Philostratus, Her. 27.10–11; 45.6; for dangers of anger, see, e.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 9.3; Babrius, Fab. 11; earlier, Ahiqar in ANET 429. See most fully Harris, Rage.

. Plutarch, S. Rom. “Cato the Elder” 16 (Mor. 199A); Horace, Ep. 1.2.61–62; Seneca Y., Lucil. 18.14; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 86. One might afterward regret acting in anger (e.g., Horace, Ep. 1.2.59–62; Ps.-Phoc. 57–58).

. See Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.10c, pp. 60–61.8–14; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.114.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 123.1–2; Dial. 3–5; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 40.21; 16, p. 104.18 (emphasizing self-control); Epictetus, Diatr. 1.15.1–5; 2.19.26; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.15–16; 2.7.11s, p. 100.6–7; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.26; cf. Seneca E., Controv. 2.pref. 2; Musonius Rufus, Lect. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16. Typical moralists urged control of anger, but Stoics like Seneca its eradication (Van Hoof, “Differences”).

. Publilius Syrus, Sent. 214; Philodemus, Crit. frg. 12; Cicero, Quint. fratr. 1.1.13.37–39; Horace, Sat. 1.3.76–77; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.1.ext. 1–2; Plutarch, Rage frg. 148; Bride 39 (Mor. 143E) (in marriage); Sol. 21.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.34; Lucian, Dem. 51; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 86–87, 96; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 8.1.23.

. 4Q477 f2.ii.4; Sir. 1:22; 10:6, 18; 20:2; 27:30; 28:3, 7; 30:24; Ps.-Phoc. 57 (drawing on the same idea as CD 9.4–8; cf. Lev. 19:17); T. Dan 2–4 (esp. 2:2; 3:6); m. ʾAbot 2:10; in Christian sources, cf. James 1:19–20; Did. 3.2; 4.10; 15.3; 1 Clem. 13.1; 46.5; 63.2; Ignatius, Phld. 8.1; Polycarp, Phil. 12.2; Barn. 19.7.

. See, e.g., 4 Macc. 1:24; 2:16–17, 20; 3:3.

. E.g., Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.6a, p. 38.4; 6b, p. 38.19; Josephus, Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199; J.W. 2.118; Acts 15:5; 26:5; Rüpke, Religion, 26–27.

. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:19. On a larger level, it might be something like denominationalism today (in terms of rigid loyalties and rivalry, not in terms of different structures).

. The term and its cognates could also connote “zeal” (cf. Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:6), but that sense could be positive in some contexts (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 39; 2 Cor. 7:7, 11; 9:2; 11:2). Given its context here (and in vice lists in Rom. 13:13; 2 Cor. 12:20), translations usually prefer “jealousy” here; cf. Gal. 4:17–18; 1 Cor. 3:3; 13:4.

. Cf. Seeman, “Zeal.” Plutarch (Profit 10 [Mor. 91E]) counts it both endemic in humanity and characteristic of the base (citing Pindar, frg. 212). See further comment in Keener, Acts, 2:1206–7.

. E.g., Horace, Sat. 1.1 (e.g., status in 1.1.61–62; wealth in 1.1.70–79); Seneca Y., Dial. 5.31.1; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 17, p. 108.13; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.20; 2.19.26; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5f, pp. 30–31.28; 2.7.10e, pp. 62–63.15; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.19; Pseudo-Anacharsis, Ep. 4.13; Plutarch, Flatterer 24 (Mor. 65B); Lect. 5 (Mor. 39DE); Profit 8 (Mor. 91AB); Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.5; 10.117.

. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 77–78; Plutarch, Envy (Mor. 536E–538E) (hate was worse, since it desired the other’s destruction).

. E.g., Hesiod, Op. 195; Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.8; Cyr. 1.4.15; Ovid, Metam. 2.760–64, 768–69; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.8.4; Plutarch, Is. Os. 27 (Mor. 361C); Fronto, M. Caes. 4.1.

. E.g., Wis. 6:23; Let. Aris. 224; Sib. Or. 3.660–64; T. Iss. 4:5; T. Gad 7:2; T. Sim. 3; Philo, Good Person 13; Sacrifices 20–21, 32; Posterity 138, 140, 150; Josephus, Ant. 2.13; 18.255; J.W. 1.77; m. ʾAbot 4:21; T. Sol. 6:4 (MSS); 2 En. 70:23.

. See, e.g., Reicke, Era, 308, on associations; for symposia, see Smith, Symposium, 36.

. Philo, Cherubim 92 (trans. F. H. Colson, LCL, 2:65).

. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 58.33; 83; Dial. 1.3.2; 7.12.3.

. E.g., Sir. 26:8; 31:29–30; Tob. 4:15; 1QpHab 11.13–14; 4Q169 4.4–5; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.195, 204; Philo, Flaccus 4, 136; Moses 2.162; T. Jud. 16:1; Sipra Šem. par. 1.100.1.2–3 (where Rabbi Judah hyperbolically suggests capital punishment; cf. Deut. 21:20).

. E.g., Demosthenes, Con. 7; Horace, Sat. 1.3.90–91; Seneca Y., Dial. 5.37.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 27.2; 32.55.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 83.19–20; Martial, Epigr. 3.16.3; 3.48.5–10; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.76. Cf. the story of Noah (Jub. 7:7; Josephus, Ant. 1.141).

. E.g., Plutarch, Table Talk 3.intro. (Mor. 645A); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 27.2; Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; worse, Polybius, Hist. 14.4.9–10.

. Cf. Horace, Carm. 1.18; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 4.3.ext. 3a; 9.1.8; Lucian, Nigr. 15; True Story 2.46; Chariton, Chaer. 4.3.8; Athenaeus, Deipn. 10.444D; 15.668B.

. Sir. 19:2; T. Jud. 14:1–8.

. E.g., Euripides, Cycl. 534; Aeschines, Tim. 59; Lysias, Or. 3.6, §96–97; 3.11, §97; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 4.4.6; Philo, Contempl. Life 40–47; Lucian, Dial. G. 248–49 (22/18, Hera and Zeus ¶2); Plutarch, Alex. 51.1–6; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 20.

. Polybius, Hist. 6.7.5.

. Plutarch, Alc. 19.1.

. BDAG.

. 2 Macc. 6:4; Wis. 14:23; it seems to characterize also pagan festivals in Philo, Cherubim 92; Spec. Laws 2.193; cf. Embassy 12.

. It could also have a positive sense in contexts of joyful feasting without excess; e.g., Josephus, Ant. 11.66; it is negative excess in Josephus, J.W. 2.29. It is depicted as an erect but unconscious, drunk youth in Philostratus the Elder, Imag. 1.2.

. Dunn (Galatians, 306) helpfully cites Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; perhaps 2 Cor. 13:2. See esp. the instruction in 1 Thess. 3:4 and 4:6 using the same term (προλέγω [prolegō]) as here. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 275. It does not refer here specifically to predictive prophecy (as in Rom. 9:29), pace Aune, Prophecy, 258.

. See, e.g., Sauer, “Erwägungen”; Thompson, Clothed; Dunn, “Jesus Tradition”; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 189–95; Kim, New Perspective, 259–90; Taylor, “Paul and Quest”; Allison, Jesus, 346–48; Blomberg, “Quotations.”

. Ancient persuaders understood the value of preparing an audience for a potentially offensive statement; see Rowe, “Style,” 142; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 581.

. This is unexpected for the converted, but not impossible; see Marshall, Kept, 112; comment on Gal. 5:4.

. Bruce, Galatians, 250. He compares the list of categories of the damned in m. Sanh. 10:1–3.

. Cf. 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18. Donfried (Thessalonica, 247–48) adds 1 Thess. 2:12 to the “present” context, but this is debatable. For the kingdom in Paul, see Donfried, Thessalonica, 233–52.

. In 5:22–23, I draw on Keener, “Fruit.”

. E.g., 1QS 4.3; applied also to what we might call gifts, e.g., Theon, Progymn. 9.15–19; Pliny Y., Ep. 6.11.2; 6.26.1; Symmachus, Ep. 1.2.7.

. Philo, Sacrifices 27; Seneca Y., Lucil. 95.55; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 4, p. 44.10–12; 8, p. 66.11; 14, p. 92.31–33; 17, p. 108.8–11; 38, p. 136.3 (Lutz); Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b, p. 10.16–25; 2.7.5b2, p. 14.18–20; 2.7.11i, p. 78.12–18; 2.7.11m, p. 88.1–8; Plutarch, Stoic Contr. 7 (Mor. 1034C).

. Rhet. Alex. 6, 1427b.39–41, 1428a.1–2; 36, 1442a.11–12; Cicero, Mur. 14.30; 29.60; Rhet. Her. 3.2.3; Theon, Progymn. 9.15–24; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.37; Pliny Y., Ep. 6.11.2; 6.26.1; Lucian, Portr. 11; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 3.1; 18.5. Particularly fitting in a eulogy (e.g., Arrian, Anab. 7.28.1–3), they could surround individuals in biographies, as in Cornelius Nepos, Gen. 15 (Epaminondas), 3.1–3.

. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5f, p. 30.18–19. Their distinction of virtues from activities (p. 30.21–22) is more rigidly analytical than Paul’s approach.

. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 51.

. As in Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 160; cf. 168. Stoics described even emotions cognitively (Knuuttila and Sihvola, “Emotions,” 13; Sorabji, Emotion, 2, 21, 29–54; but cf. later modifications in 121–32; Cooper, “Posidonius,” 71) and as corporeal (Vogt, “Brutes”).

. Campbell (“No Law”) argues for translating it “such people” but acknowledges the parallel in 5:21 (which I believe argues for retaining “such things”). Fung (Galatians, 273) allows the solution grammatically but finds it less probable.

. See here Adewuya, Holiness, 94.

. Perhaps also “implanted” in James 1:21 (but the meaning there could be more general). Although Paul probably would not have minded us drawing the connection had he thought of it, he probably did not deliberately connect the fruit here specifically with “seed” in Gal. 3:16, 19, 29, since he does not repeat that language in this context.

. Philosophers provided a somewhat analogous image of divine seed, except for them it was innate without conversion; cf. Ovid, Fast. 6.6; Seneca Y., Lucil. 73.16; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 2, p. 38.12–14; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.4–6; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.40; Posterity 171. Judeans saw the Torah as a seed that would bear fruit in God’s people (4 Ezra 3:20; 9:31, 33; cf. m. ʾAbot 3:17). The early Christian image is probably related to the wider divine seed concept, but agricultural images were sufficiently pervasive that this cannot be regarded as a foregone conclusion.

. Quintilian, Inst. pref. 10; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.15.8; 1.17.9; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 41.12; Plutarch, Alc. 4.1; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 9.10; Philo, Migration 205; Flight 176; see also Betz, Galatians, 286n138.

. I.e., not in identity or infinitude.

. Cf. John 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:4; Snodgrass, “ΠΝΕΥΜΑ,” 195; see also Talbert, John, 77, 98; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 10.4; esp. (though later) Porphyry, Marc. 19.314–16; 33.516–17. No NT writer goes so far (esp. given the biblical understanding of God’s omnipotence and omnipresence), but some gentile thinkers might construe this as divinization (cf. Seneca Y., Dial. 1.1.5; Lucil. 48.11; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.3.3; 2.19.26–27; Plutarch, Pomp. 27.3; Sent. Sextus 7ab; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 4.16).

. Cf. Matt. 3:8, 10 // Luke 3:8–9; Mark 4:8; 11:14; 12:2. The idea is reflected widely in early Christian tradition, e.g., James 3:17–18; Heb. 12:11; Jude 12; Ignatius, Eph. 14.2; perhaps Herm. 53.3.

. E.g., although Israel yielded fruit for idolatry (Hosea 10:1, 4, 13), God would make them sow and reap righteousness (10:11–12) and bear fruit (14:5–7), of which he would be the source (14:8). See further Beale, “Background.”

. With, e.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 5.22 (Edwards); Ridderbos, Epistle, 207; Longenecker, Paul, 178–79; Fee, Presence, 444; cf. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:22 (Bray, Galatians, 197–98). Note also the contrast between positive fruit and “unfruitful works” in Eph. 5:9–11.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 87.25 (trans. R. M. Gummere, LCL, 2:337). Agrarian societies naturally understood this principle (e.g., Gen. 1:11–12).

. 4 Ezra 4:31.

. See Wright, Justification, 193, against passivity.

. E.g., Cicero, Leg. 1.22.58–59; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.8.10–11, 14; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 2.13, 17; 3.5–6, 12; 3.16.2; 5.10.2; cf. Philo in Sellin, “Christus-mystik.”

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 17, p. 108.8–22; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 38.1.

. 1QS 4.3; cf. 4Q444 f1–4i+5.3. For virtue as God’s gift, see Let. Aris. 231, 237–38, 243, 267, 251–52; 271–72, 274, 276, 278, 282, 290. Such divine empowerment, however, still falls short of Paul’s image here (Gathercole, Boasting, 134).

. Calvin emphasizes an ethical dimension even for “joy,” identifying it as “‘cheerfulness’ toward our fellow human beings” (Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:22 [Bray]).

. Stoics saw all virtue as inseparable (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b5, p. 18.17–19); some others demurred (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 5.31).

. Always in undisputed works; the only exception in the Pauline corpus is 2 Tim. 2:6.

. With, e.g., Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.5.22 (Edwards); de Boer, Galatians, 362.

. See Apoll. K. Tyre 39; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.68; Miccoli, “Spirito festivo”; Rüpke, Religion, 15, 89.

. E.g., Neh. 8:10–12; Ps. 42:4; Jub. 16:27, 29; 18:19; 2 Macc. 10:6–7; m. Sukkah 5:1; Sipre Deut. 142.3.1. For performative emotions in religious experience, see Harkins, Reading, 98–106.

. E.g., Pss. 2:11 (LXX); 5:11; 20:5; 27:6; 31:7; 32:11; 33:1, 3; 35:9; 43:4; 47:1; 63:7; 67:4; 68:3–4; 71:23; 81:1; 84:2; 90:14; 92:4; 95:1; 98:4; 132:9, 16; cf. Jub. 36:6; L.A.B. 21:9; Jos. Asen. 3:4.

. For a survey of joy in Paul’s letters, see Kampling, “Freude”; Morrice, “Joy.” In the NT generally, see Elliott, Feelings, 167–81.

. See further Kampling, “Freude.”

. Luke often connects the Spirit with conversion, but only here and Luke 10:21 (using a different term) connects the Spirit directly with joy.

. Witherington, Grace, 409.

. See discussion in Keener, Mind, 220–23.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 108.7; 116.1; Musonius Rufus, Lect. frg. 36, p. 134.14–16. More philosophers shared Aristotle’s preference for moderation; for a survey of views, see Sorabji, Emotion, 194–202; Knuuttila and Sihvola, “Emotions,” 17.

. See Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 72; Engberg-Pedersen, “Aurelius on Emotions,” 334–35; Brennan, “Stoic Theory,” 57. Beyond Stoics, cf. Cicero, Off. 1.38.136; 2.5.18; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.3.ext. 1; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 32.225; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.110.

. E.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 17, p. 108.7; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5k, pp. 34–35.1; 2.7.11e, p. 68.12–16; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 31.196. Stoics approved of joy as a good emotion (Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 612; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 73). It was not, however, a moral “virtue” (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b, p. 10.19; 2.7.5c, p. 28.7; 2.7.5g, p. 32.4), though Paul lists it with virtues that belong to the Spirit’s fruit (Gal. 5:22–23). Stoics appreciated a “calm pleasure” concerning what was good (Brennan, “Stoic Theory,” 57).

. See, e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 7, p. 58.13–15; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b5, p. 20.15–16; 2.7.6d, pp. 38.34–41.3; 2.7.6e, p. 40.11–13; Vorster, “Blessedness.”

. Diogn. 10.5; the term and its cognates appear 151 times in Josephus (e.g., Ant. 1.14, 20, 41, 44, 46, 69, 98, 104, 113, 142–43) and 189 times in Philo (e.g., Alleg. Interp. 1.4; 2.10, 82, 101–2; 3.52, 83, 205, 209, 218–19, 245). Haimo of Auxerre (on Gal. 5:22 [Levy]) felt that the Vulgate term for “joy” was more exuberant than its term for “happiness”; cf. also Jerome, Comm. Gal. 5.22.

. See, e.g., Plato, Phaed. 83d; Cicero, Inv. 2.54.164; Off. 2.5.18; Leg. 1.23.60; Sallust, Catil. 51.3; Plutarch, Lect. 1 (Mor. 37E); Maximus of Tyre, Or. 33.3; Porphyry, Marc. 6.99; 29.453–60; 31.478–83; 34.521–22; see further Keener, Mind, 21–22, 77–78.

. Knuuttila and Sihvola, “Emotions,” 17.

. Seneca Y., Dial. 7.15.4, 6; 7.16.1–3; 9.10.4; Epictetus, Diatr. 4.7.9. For them, joy could be valuable but not virtuous, whereas virtues could lead to a state of happiness (eudaimonia; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b.19–21; 2.7.5c, p. 28.7–9; 2.7.5g, p. 32.1–6; 2.7.5k, p. 34.1; 2.7.6d, pp. 38.34–40.3). Joy can include a cognitive element (Ford, “Mirth,” 132).

. Seneca Y., Dial. 7; Ben. 7.2.3; Lucil. 23; 27.3–4; 59.10.

. E.g., Wis. 8:16.

. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:2; y. Pesaḥ. 10:1; b. Yoma 4b; see further Tannaim in Urbach, Sages, 1:390; Anderson, “Joy.”

. E.g., Let. Aris. 261.

. Here I particularly follow Keener, “Perspectives,” 222–25; Keener, Mind, 135–38, 140.

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.5.22; Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 5:22 (Levy).

. Such an opposition appears in the Platonic tradition; see Philo, Creation 81; Iamblichus, Ep. 9.4–5, 7, 10 (Stobaeus, Anth. 2.33.15); Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 529, 538; Wasserman, “Philosophers,” 82.

. Lucretius, Nat. 5.1198–206; Cicero, Fin. 1.14.47; Off. 1.29.102; 1.38.136; Seneca Y., Dial. 4.12.6; 4.13.2; 5.6.1; 7.8.6; 9; Lucil. 75.18; Musonius Rufus, Lect. frg. 38, p. 136.1–3; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4.1, 3; Ench. 8; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b1, p. 12.31–33; 2.7.5k, p. 34.1–4; 2.7.11s, p. 100.7; Lucian, Alex. 47; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.85, 131; 10.144.17.

. See Dio Chrysostom, Or. 13.13; Bett, “Sceptics,” 212 (contrasting Skeptics).

. Let. Aris. 273; T. Sim. 3:5; Philo, Flight 174; Dreams 2.228–29 (using eirēnē, Paul’s term for peace); Alleg. Interp. 3.187.

. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.45.

. E.g., with humans, Rom. 3:17; 12:18 (verb εἰρηνεύω, eirēneuō); 14:19; 1 Cor. 7:15; 14:33; 16:11; 2 Cor. 13:11; with God, Rom. 5:1. Even in the sparsely worded Rom. 15:33, some of the earliest interpreters found the relational emphasis (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Rom.; Pelagius, Comm. Rom.; cf. Ambrosiaster, Comm. Paul’s Epistles [Bray]).

. Cf. perhaps also Phil. 4:7, though cf. the issue of unity in Phil. 4:2–3.

. Augustine, Ep. Gal. 51 (Edwards).

. See, e.g., Moo, Galatians, 365; de Boer, Galatians, 364.

. BDAG. Cf. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:22: “Patience is gentleness of mind, which disposes us to take everything in good part and not to be easily offended” (Bray).

. In the LXX, it likewise applies both to God (Jer. 15:15; cf. Wis. 15:1; Let. Aris. 188; 2 Bar. 24:2; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2:8) and humans (Prov. 25:15; Isa. 57:15; 1 Macc. 8:4; Sir. 5:11 [cf. 2:4]; T. Job 21:4; 27:7/10). It does not appear in Philo (or some philosophers such as Epictetus) and appears only once in Josephus (Titus in J.W. 6.37), but often in early Christian sources, esp. Pauline literature, but also in Heb. 6:12; James 5:10; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:15; 1 Clem. 13.1; 62.2; 64.1; Herm. 33.3, 6; 34.3, 8; 73.6; 92.2; Ignatius, Eph. 3.1; 11.1; Barn. 2.2; Acts John 77.1–2; Apoc. Paul 4–6; Basil, Holy Sp. 15.35.3; the cognate adjective in Theophilus, Autol. 2.26, 37.

. Elsewhere in early Christian sources, in 1 Clem. 9.1; 2 Clem. 15.5; 19.1; Ignatius, Magn. 10.1; Smyrn. 6.2; Diogn. 9.1–2, 6; 10.4. The cognate adjective (χρηστός, chrēstos) appears in Rom. 2:4; 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:32; and, outside Paul, in Matt. 11:30; Luke 5:39; 6:35; 1 Pet. 2:3; 1 Clem. 14.4; Diogn. 8.8; cf. also Sib. Or. 1.159.

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 14, p. 92.31; cf. the virtue list in Lect. 16, p. 104.33.

. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b2, p. 14.18–20; “a knowledge which is disposed to do good” (p. 16.14; trans. A. J. Pomeroy); cf. Epictetus, Diatr. 3.10.3 (the cognate adjective). It appears in lists of attributes for ideal rulers (Musonius Rufus, Lect. 8, p. 66.11).

. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5 L, p. 36.6 (hence, generosity).

. It appears 26 times in the LXX (the cognate adjective 39 times), 22 times in Josephus (the adjective 52 times), and 9 times in Philo (the adjective 77 times).

. Cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.59, on the generic character of the cognate term ἀγαθότης (agathotēs).

. It appears fourteen times in the LXX; also in Barn. 2.9; Theophilus, Autol. 1.3; Acts Paul Thec. 1.2; Acts John 107.3; Acts Thom. 119.2; the synonymous cognate in 2 Clem. 13.4; nowhere in Josephus or Philo.

. See deSilva, Honor, 145; deSilva, “Patronage,” 768. (One might compare the expected reciprocal relationship in Mediterranean antiquity between grace and gratitude.) It is often expressed in the adjective pistos, applicable to humans in 1 Cor. 4:2, 17; 7:25; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:2, 7; 4:7, 9; 1 Tim. 1:12; 3:11; 2 Tim. 2:2. Sometimes even this adjective may refer to faith, however, as in Gal. 3:9 (its only use in Galatians); 2 Cor. 6:15; 1 Tim. 4:3; perhaps Eph. 1:1; 1 Tim. 4:10, 12; 6:2; Titus 1:6. In Epictetus, Diatr. 1.4.18, 19, 20, it applies to an honorable person.

. E.g., Johannes Brenz, Explanation of Galatians, on Gal. 5:22; cf. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 5:22 (Bray); Lightfoot, Galatians, 213; Burton, Galatians, 316; Bruce, Galatians, 254 (trustworthiness, dependability); Fung, Galatians, 272.

. Witherington, Grace, 410; Das, Galatians, 582, rightly noting Rom. 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:18–20; 1 Thess. 5:23–24; add also 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Thess. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13.

. Fee (Paul, Spirit, People, 98) sees it as further faith but defines it as “faithful walking in God’s ways.”

. 1QS 4.3, as often noted—e.g., Flusser, Judaism, 57. Possibly also 1QS 3.8 (especially when taken with 3.7).

. E.g., Ps. 72:2; Prov. 3:34; Sir. 3:17; Josephus, Ant. 3.212; Sipre Deut. 38.1.4; ʾAbot R. Nat. 38A; 29, §§60–62; 41, §114B; cf. Maher, “Humble”; Young, Parables, 245–51; Dawes, “ʿĂNĀW”; Giese, “Compassion.”

. See, e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 104.18; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.37; Plutarch, Brut. 29.2; Flatterer 28 (Mor. 69C); Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 100.4–7; Lucian, Alex. 61; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.4, 389.8; esp. discussion in Good, King. Luther (First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 5:23 [Bray]) understood “gentleness” as resisting anger.

. Not least the revelry that culminates 5:19–21 (Hays, “Galatians,” 328). For fuller detail on the virtue of self-control in antiquity, see Keener, Acts, 4:3434–35; Keener, “Madness”; Stowers, Rereading of Romans, 42–82 (mentioning this passage, 79–80).

. See, e.g., Isocrates, Demon. 21; Xenophon, Oec. 7.27; Hell. 4.8.22. Cf. the broad sense of the Latin temperantia in Cicero, Tusc. 3.8.16; modestia in Rhet. Her. 3.2.3. It is closely related conceptually to σωφροσύνη (sōphrosunē), on which see Keener, Acts, 4:3539–41; more extensively, North, Sophrosyne.

. Probably few members of Paul’s audience in Galatia were highly educated, but in at least some cities such as Pisidian Antioch they would have been exposed to speakers who were.

. E.g., Isocrates, Demon. 21; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.85; 29.14; 62.7; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.10, 416.19.

. See, e.g., Cicero, Fin. 1.14.47; 2.19.60; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.10.18; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 78.13; 2.7.5b2, p. 14.16; cf. Galen, Grief 79b; Lodge, Ethics, 40–42; Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 525–34. It is equivalent to wisdom in Epictetus, Diatr. 2.21.9; Wis. 8:21; and (via the law) 4 Macc. 5:34–35.

. Socrates in Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.1.

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 104.18–21; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 17.72.

. E.g., Let. Aris. 278; 4 Macc. 5:34; roughly sixty times in Philo, e.g., Creation 164; Worse 103; in a virtue list, Sacrifices 27.

. Cf. Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:13 (Bray): “The law cannot be fulfilled without the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit cannot be received without Christ. Until that happens the human spirit remains unclean, and so whatever parts of the law it performs are hypocritical and sinful.” Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 5:23 (Bray): the Spirit replaces the law by writing it on believers’ hearts (as in Jer. 31:33), “so that they voluntarily do what the law cannot require without making severe threats,” while allowing that the law remains valuable for “teaching, instruction, exhortation and rebuke” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2).

. See more fully here Keener, “Fruit,” 590–93.

. For ancient rhetorical and literary use of ideal types (as opposed to the assumption of literal moral perfection), see Keener, Mind, 122–27.

. Aristotle, Pol. 3.8.2, 1284a, cited in, e.g., Bruce, “All Things,” 90, 98; Betz, Galatians, 288n164; Witherington, Grace, 411; de Boer, Galatians, 366; deSilva, Galatians, 469. Cf. Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11i, p. 76.32–37; Philo, Good Person 59. Laws remain necessary to restrain bad persons (Aeschines, Tim. 13; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 38.6; 1 Tim. 1:9).

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 66.6 (trans. R. M. Gummere, LCL, 2:7). An ideal king was a living law; see Musonius Rufus, Lect. 8, p. 64.11–12; cf. also Klassen, “King.”

. Seneca E., Controv. 1.1.14.

. Philo, Abraham 16; cf. Lucian, Dem. 59; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.68; Porphyry, Marc. 27.422–25.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 76.4. For some different texts about divine law in Dio, see deSilva, Readings, 246.

. Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 5.

. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 69.8–9; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 6.5–6; 36.4–5; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 1.3, 360.12–13; cf. Ovid, Metam. 1.89–90. But cf. Polybius, Hist. 4.47.3–4: when a people’s laws are good, the people and state will also be good.

. Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 104.32–36.

. The phrase appears also in 1 Cor. 15:23.

. Cf. Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 61; Schreiner, Galatians, 351; de Boer, Galatians, 367.

. E.g., Philo, Dreams 2.213; Seneca Y., Dial. 1.3.10; 7.19.3; Apuleius, Metam. 7.16; 9.23, 31; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.26.22.

. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 72; Knuuttila and Sihvola, “Emotions,” 16–17; Emilsson, “Plotinus,” 359; more moderately, Musonius Rufus, Lect. 7, p. 56.26–27; Plutarch, Bride 33 (Mor. 142E). Philo shared the Stoic approach to this point; Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 539.

. Stowers, “Self-Mastery,” 536–37.

. Martyn, Galatians, 482. Betz (Galatians, 292) finds in this section maxims rather than ethical absolutes, but he attributes the composition and arrangement to Paul himself.

. Barclay, Obeying, 155; cf. Betz, Galatians, 293; Longenecker, Galatians, 265. On the indicative and imperative, see further Barclay, Obeying, 225–27; comment on Gal. 5:1.

. Bruce, Galatians, 257.

. Paul assumes that they already do so, thus the appropriateness of the first-class conditional sentence; with Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 295.

. Others also connect the verb here with that in 5:16; e.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 214; Barclay, Obeying, 155; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 391 (noting an inclusio); Fung, Galatians, 275; Matera, Galatians, 204; Schreiner, Galatians, 356; Moo, Galatians, 372.

. Sir. 21:6 refers to sinful “steps” (ichnos); for “steps,” cf. also LXX Pss. 17:37 (ET 18:36); 76:20 (ET 77:19); Prov. 5:5.

. Dunn, Galatians, 317; de Boer, Galatians, 372.

. Barclay, Gift, 367n44. From papyri, BDAG suggests movement toward the standard.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 295.

. De Boer, Galatians, 372. Whereas pneumati (“by the Spirit”) may be a dative of means in the first clause (Burton, Galatians, 322; de Boer, Galatians, 370), some see pneumati in the second clause as a dative of association—hence, “Let us follow the Spirit” (de Boer, Galatians, 372; Moo, Galatians, 372).

. One might compare the Spirit guiding in Jesus’s way in John 16:13 (cf. Keener, John, 2:1036–37), and perhaps the Israelites following the cloud of glory. Cf. also Jesus doing whatever he saw the Father do (John 5:19).

. Barclay, Obeying, 155.

. Witherington, Grace, 413; Hays, “Galatians,” 328–29; Schreiner, Galatians, 356–57 (“perhaps”); deSilva, Readings, 274.

. Moo, Galatians, 372n4.

. Unless one interprets the stoicheia in light of 5:25, as in Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom.”

. E.g., Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 305. For 6:1–6 as a unit, see, e.g., Lambrecht, “Admonition.”

. Fee (Galatians, 228) sees 6:1–10 as examples of believers walking in the Spirit, the Spirit’s effects on community life.

. Barclay (“Grace,” 307) argues that Paul’s instructions in 6:1–10 are given to protect the Galatians from the values of “their contest-culture.”

. Barclay, Obeying, 153.

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 318.

. The combination of firmness and regret at needing to be firm in 2 Cor. 12:20–13:3 may be instructive here.

. Cf. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:1; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 6:1 (Bray).

. Sweeney (“Task”) invokes here the early Christian “already but not yet” principle.

. Betz, Galatians, 298, citing Plato, Phaedr. 230A.

. E.g., Plato, Alcib. I 129A; Charm. 164E–65A; Amat. 138A; Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.6; 4.2.24; Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 9.10.2; Epictetus, Frag. 1; Plutarch, Flatterer 25 (Mor. 65F); Profit 5 (Mor. 89A); Dinner 21 (Mor. 164B); E Delph. 17 (Mor. 392A); 21 (Mor. 394C).

. Barclay, Obeying, 174.

. It was applied in various ways; see Cicero, Tusc. 1.22.52; Plutarch, Pomp. 27.3; Porphyry, Marc. 32.485–95; Reiser, “Erkenne”; cf. Betz, “Maxim in Papyri”; Betz, “Maxim in Interpretation.”

. Plato, Charmides; Alcib. I 129A; Amat. 138A; Aristotle, Eth. nic. 4.3.36, 1125A; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 49; Plutarch, Demosth. 3.2; Flatterer 1 (Mor. 49B); Profit 5 (Mor. 89A); E Delph. 17 (Mor. 392A); Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.36; Nilsson, Piety, 47–48; Marshall, Enmity, 192–93, 201; discussion in Keener, John, 1:236–37. It appears as one of life’s most basic truths in Epictetus, Diatr. 3.1.18; Plutarch, Let. Apoll. 28 (Mor. 116CD); E Delph. 2 (Mor. 385D); Or. Delph. 29 (Mor. 408E); R. Col. 20 (Mor. 1118C).

. Plutarch Profit 5 (Mor. 89A); cf. a similar sense in Thales, according to Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.36.

. Philodemus, Crit. frg. 2.

. Philodemus, Crit. frg. 46 (trans. D. Konstan, p. 59).

. See the survey in Dunn, Galatians, 319–20. In 1 Cor. 2:14–3:4, Paul’s use of “spiritual” is not intended to exalt one Corinthian group as more spiritual, but rather to reprove all the groups for their fleshly competition with one another; see Keener, Mind, 189–95.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 308, citing also Ambrosiaster, Comm. Gal. 6.2.1–2. Cf. different tiers of discipleship among Pythagoreans in Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 18.81.

. With Fee, Presence, 461; Barclay, Obeying, 157; Longenecker, Galatians, 273; Matera, Galatians, 213; Hansen, Galatians, 184; Witherington, Grace, 422; Moo, Galatians, 374; Das, Galatians, 603.

. Isaacs, Spirit, 71; see here Mussner, Galaterbrief, 398 (Gesinnung); Moo, Galatians, 375.

. E.g., Hansen, Galatians, 185; cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.1 (Edwards).

. E.g., Deut. 34:9; Isa. 11:2; Wis. 1:5–7; 7:7; 1 En. 61:11; 1QS 4.3; L.A.B. 27:10.

. Cf. Cousar, Galatians, 144: “the gentle Spirit.”

. Dunn, Galatians, 319.

. Cf. the same term in Rom. 5:20; the virtual synonym in Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:19. Witherington (Grace, 421) suggests transgression against Christ’s law in 6:2.

. Paul apparently recognizes that, realistically, a church will probably eventually confront this situation. Commentators cite the third-class future more probable condition in the protasis (Longenecker, Galatians, 273; Witherington, Grace, 420).

. Cf. forgiving others’ “transgressions” (Matt. 6:14–15; Mark 11:25); God forgiving them in Christ in 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 1:7; 2:5; Col. 2:13.

. Burton, Galatians, 327. Cf. images of falling in Gal. 5:4, 7.

. Rather than this suggesting that the sin is inadvertent, Lightfoot (Galatians, 215) understands “be surprised, detected [by someone else] in the act of committing any sin,” making the transgressor’s guilt clear.

. With Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.1 (Edwards); Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:1 (Bray); Fung, Galatians, 284–85; Garlington, “Burden Bearing,” 158–59; Fee, Galatians, 230; de Boer, Galatians, 375, citing Wis. 17:16–17; Josephus, J.W. 5.79.

. With Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:1 (Bray).

. Betz, Galatians, 297. Paul sometimes uses the term (καταρτίζω, katartizō) with reference to restoration (2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Thess. 3:10; cf. 1 Pet. 5:10); the term was common in the later parts of the LXX.

. Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 4:18; Phil. 2:4; 3:14 (cognate noun), 17; the earliest other Christian uses are Luke 11:35; 1 Clem. 19.2; 51.1; 63.1; 2 Clem. 19.1; Mart. Pol. 1.2.

. Matera, Galatians, 214. See Barclay, Gift, 435, regarding the danger of rivalry.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 309.

. Church fathers, influenced by prior Stoic philosophy, grappled with differences between deliberately assenting to passion and involuntary reactions that we might now attribute to precognitive processing through the amygdala; see Sorabji, Emotion, 2–11, 73–75, 118–19, 133, 144–55, 372–77, 382–83, 417.

. See also Luke 4:2; Matt. 4:3; 1 Chron. 21:1; CD 12.2; 1QS 10.21; 4Q174 frg. 1 2.i.9; 4Q225 f2.ii.6–8, 14; 11Q5 19.15; Jub. 10:8, 11; 17:16; T. Reu. 4:11; T. Jos. 7:4; T. Iss. 7:7; T. Ash. 3:2; 3 Bar. 9:7; b. B. Bat. 16a; Gen. Rab. 70:8.

. See, e.g., Rom. 14:1, 10, 13; Matt. 7:1–5; James 5:9; Demosthenes, 2 Olynth. 27; Publilius Syrus, Sent. 52; Longinus, Subl. 4.1; Phaedrus, Fab. 4.10; Babrius, Fab. 66; Seneca Y., Dial. 4.28.6–8; cf. also Julian, Or. 6.200C–201C, in Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 34; Abrahams, Studies (2), 118.

. Euripides, frg. 1042 (trans. C. Collard and M. Cropp, LCL, 8:587). Those who think themselves exalted should beware lest they fall (Seneca Y., Lucil. 94.73–74; cf. 1 Cor. 10:12).

. Isocrates, Nic. 61 (trans. G. Norlin, LCL, 1:111–13); cf. similarly Isocrates, Demon. 17, 48; Seneca Y., Lucil. 20.1–2; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.28; probably Catonian lines in Columbanus 27 in Minor Latin Poets 1:630–31. Cf. further Juvenal, Sat. 2.9–10, 20–21; 14.38–40; Plutarch, Profit 5 (Mor. 88F–89A).

. Let. Aris. 262–63.

. Moore, Judaism, 2:155, citing b. ʿArak. 16b. One should help a neighbor as best one can, a Jewish sage warns, taking heed not to fall oneself (Sir. 29:20); however, the context does not make clear that this refers to reproof.

. Augustine, Ep. Gal. 56 (1B.6.1) (on Gal. 6:1; Edwards).

. Cf. Matt. 6:12 // Luke 11:4; Matt. 18:21–22, amplifying or reflecting tradition coherent with Luke 17:4; Sir. 28:1–5.

. Cf. Mark 2:17; Matt. 11:19 // Luke 7:34; Luke 15:7; 18:14.

. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 9.32.2; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.69; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 9, pp. 72.23–74.11; Plutarch, Praising 6 (Mor. 541D); Pliny Y., Ep. 3.3.5; Lucian, Nigr. 15; Dem. 3; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 3.7; see the discussion on παρρησία (parrhēsia) in Keener, Acts, 2:1152–58.

. E.g., Philodemus, Crit. cols. 23a–24b; Appian, Hist. rom. 9.11.3; Arrian, Anab. 5.28.1; Lysander 5 in Plutarch, Sayings of Kings and Commanders (Mor. 190F); Philostratus, Her. 33.8–9. Lucian mocks Cynics for such behavior (Phil. Sale 8; 10).

. E.g., Philodemus, Crit. frg. 31; Dio Chrysostom, Frag. 4 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.42.12); Sorabji, Emotion, 217–18.

. Philodemus, Crit. col. 1b; Plutarch, Old Man 22, Mor. 795A; Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 22.101; 33.231; cf. Rhet. Alex. 37, 1445b.17–19; Hierocles, Parents (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.79.53).

. Plutarch, Flatterer 70D–71C (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 48); Old Man 23 (Mor. 795BC).

. Prov. 1:23, 25, 30; 6:23; 10:10, 17; 13:1, 18; 15:10; 17:10; 19:25; 24:25; 25:12; 27:5; 28:23; 29:15; Sir. 20:2; 21:6; 32:17; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.193; James 5:19–20.

. CD 7.2–3; 9.8; 1QS 5.24–25; 9.17; 1QHa 10.16; 4Q267 f9.i.3; 4Q270 f6.iv.1; 5Q12 f1.2.

. 4Q477; Eshel, “Rebukes.”

. 1QS 6.1; cf. Schiffman, Law, 97–98; Davies, Sermon, 79; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4. Disrespect for fellow members of the community warranted punishment (e.g., 1QS 6.26–7.9; 7.15–16).

. E.g., 1QS 5.25–26.

. Josephus, Ant. 3.67; cf. Exod. 18:14.

. E.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.3; Sipre Deut. 1.3.2; b. ʿArak. 16b, bar.; b. Tamid 28a, bar.

. Sipre Deut. 173.1.2; y. Sanh. 7:6, §2.

. E.g., b. Sanh. 101a.

. E.g., m. ʾAbot 3:11 (hyberbolically); b. Sanh. 107a.

. E.g., t. Kip. 4:12.

. Ambrosiaster, Comm. Gal. 6.2.1–2 (Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 308); cf., similarly, b. Sanh. 107b.

. Stoics accepted equality in principle and originally felt that slavery was against nature (Erskine, Stoa, 46, 61; Stowers, “Resemble Philosophy?,” 94; Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 76–77; Grant, “Economic Background,” 105); contrast Aristotle, Pol. 1.2.3, 1253b. By this period, however, Stoics largely supported the social status quo (Erskine, Stoa, 48, 181); they supported just treatment (e.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 47.2–19; Sevenster, Seneca, 185–89) without abolition (Watts, “Seneca on Slavery”); see discussion in Fitzgerald, “Slaves,” 154–62.

. Das, Galatians, 613.

. Strelan, “Burden-Bearing.”

. E.g., Origen, Comm. Rom. 10.6 (Edwards); Witherington, Grace, 423. Cf. “sharing a burden” referring to financial help in Pliny Y., Ep. 6.32.2. The principle can of course be applied more broadly than the specific application in Gal. 6:2; cf., e.g., Rom. 15:26–27; Mageto, “Ethic.”

. See Young, “Law,” followed by Longenecker, Galatians, 275; also Bruce, Galatians, 261.

. Financial senses of terms are so well attested perhaps simply because so many surviving texts are business documents.

. Just as civic benefactors were repaid with honor rather than money (e.g., CIL 5.875; Apoll. K. Tyre 10). Nevertheless, students could honor teachers with gifts (Symmachus, Ep. 1.20.2).

. With Matera, Galatians, 214 (citing Rom. 15:1: bearing others’ weaknesses); Hansen, Galatians, 186; Das, Galatians, 607; pace Dunn, Galatians, 321–22; cf. perhaps Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.2 (Edwards). Cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.3.2.4: prosecuting others’ wrongs, he carries a special oneris, burden, not to fail in the same areas himself. Suffering passion, e.g., could be a baros (Aristaenetus, Erotic Letters 1.16, line 6, p. 38).

. See discussion below on the law of Christ. Witherington (Grace, 425–26) compares the burden-bearing with Jesus’s command to take up the cross (Mark 8:34). Although not envisioning exploitation by fellow believers, cf. possibly Matt. 5:40–42; Luke 6:29–30.

. De Boer, Galatians, 376.

. DeSilva (Honor, 100) envisions reciprocity as a sort of “insurance” for when one needs help; he notes Seneca Y., Ben. 4.18.1, where people help one another against disasters.

. Betz (Galatians, 298–99) cites various references, esp. Menander, Sent. 534; 370; most relevantly, Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.1–14; followed by de Boer, Galatians, 376; Das, Galatians, 607; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 310; tentatively by Witherington, Grace, 423n19. Thom (“Akousmata,” 107) helpfully adds Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 84; Plutarch, Table Talk (Mor. 728c); Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 42. But cf. the questions raised by Hays, “Christology and Ethics,” 287–88.

. Babrius, Fab. 7.

. Hierocles, Marriage (Stobaeus, Anth. 4.67.24), of a wife, denying that she is either a βάρος (baros) or φορτίον (phortion), the roughly synonymous nouns used in Gal. 6:2, 5.

. LXX 2 Chron. 10:4 (where the yoke is βαρύς [barus], “heavy”). The yoke of circumcision or the full law in Acts 15:10 may appear as a βάρος (baros) in Acts 15:28 (cf. Rev. 2:24).

. Unless we think of helping others bear Christ’s law; but unlike Matt. 11:29–30, Paul does not apply the yoke image to Christ.

. Barclay, Obeying, 131; de Boer, Galatians, 376; Barclay, Gift, 435.

. The loser in a popular game had to carry the winner piggyback (Hurschmann, “Ephedrismos”), but Paul does not depict the other person here as the burden. The verb βαστάζω (bastazō, 6:2, 5) comports naturally with the noun baros (e.g., Matt. 20:12; T. Ab. 11:5 B; cf. the verb associated with phortion in Epictetus, Diatr. 2.9.22; Acts Thom. 83.2–3).

. My summary depends on the summaries in Matera, Galatians, 219–21; de Boer, Galatians, 378–80; and, most extensively, Barclay, Obeying, 126–35; cf. also summaries in Pigeon, “Loi”; Adeyemi, “Law,” 444–52.

. Cf. Witherington, Grace, 425.

. Dunn, Theology of Paul, 639–41, esp. regarding the “law of faith” in Romans. A number of scholars do translate nomos as “principle” at times in Romans; I am among the commentators who object to this rendering (Keener, Romans, 61n39; Keener, Mind, 98n317).

. Davies’s most thorough analysis of relevant texts (in Davies, Torah, 70–74) details only late and/or irrelevant evidence (e.g., Tg. Isa. 12:3; Midr. Eccles. 2:1; 12:1; Tg. Song 5:10; Yal. Isa. 26). He elsewhere cites Lev. Rab. 13:3, dating the disputed tradition to ca. 300 (Leviticus Rabbah itself is much later).

. See Schäfer, “Torah”; Urbach, Sages, 1:297–302, 309; Keener, John, 1:358–59.

. De Boer, Galatians, 379–80.

. See here, e.g., Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians; Bruce, Galatians, 41, 261; Fung, Galatians, 288; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 399.

. Davies, Paul, 143–45, esp. 144; Dodd, More Studies, 134–48, esp. 147–48; followed by Brinsmead, Galatians, 178; Adeyemi, “Law,” 452; and some others noted below.

. Hays, “Christology and Ethics,” esp. 287.

. E.g., Barclay, Obeying, 132–34; Hays, “Galatians,” 333; Matera, Galatians, 221. This is a growing trend, as noted in Wilson, “Law.” Covenant theologians sometimes find here the moral law of the OT.

. Winger, “Law.”

. Cf. Barn. 2.6; Justin Martyr, Dial. 11; Lightfoot, Galatians, 216.

. Witherington, Grace, 424. He also appeals to 1 Cor. 9:21 to distinguish “between the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses.” There, however, Paul might simply be qualifying his point about not being under the law, claiming to maintain its spirit but not its letter (perhaps also what Witherington means; Witherington [Corinthians, 213] notes that Paul makes the distinction “though without specifying the nature of the distinction”).

. Hermogenes, Issues 87.2–9.

. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 219–36.

. See Jassen, “Presentation”; cf. perhaps the “second Torah” in 4Q177 f1–4.14.

. E.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 104.32–36; see fuller discussion in Keener, Acts, 3:2264–68.

. With Das, Galatians, 585.

. With Das, Galatians, 610–11, rightly bringing together some of the best insights from various positions often posed as alternatives.

. For one survey of Christian approaches to the law, see Gane, Law, 163–95, offering his own approach on 197–218.

. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics, 207–18.

. See comment on Gal. 5:14.

. Augustine, Ep. Gal. 58 (1B.6.2; Edwards).

. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 6.2 (Edwards), citing John 13:34.

. Heinrich Bullinger, Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, on Gal. 6:2; Erasmus Sarcerius, Ann. Gal., on Gal. 6:2; Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:2 (Bray).

. Hansen, Galatians, 189; deSilva, Galatians, 485.

. Hunter, Gospel, 46; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 658; Dunn, Galatians, 322–23; Witherington, Grace, 421–22; Moo, Galatians, 378.

. Strelan (“Burden-Bearing,” 276) thinks that Jesus’s teaching is echoed in “1 Cor. 9:14; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18; Did. 13:2, and probably Gal. 6:6.”

. See Dunn, “Jesus Tradition.” Longenecker (Paul, 189), following Davies (Paul, 138), gives these examples in Romans alone: Rom. 12:14 (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28); Rom. 12:17, 21 (Matt. 5:39–42 // Luke 6:29–30); Rom. 13:7 (Mark 12:13–17); Rom. 13:8–10 (Mark 12:28–34); Rom. 14:10 (Matt. 7:1 // Luke 6:37); Rom. 14:13 (Mark 9:42; cf. Rev. 18:21); Rom. 14:14 (Mark 7:15–19). Because most of these allusions are unmarked, debate continues about them, debate that may be warranted for the weaker allusions.

. Paul also uses this in 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; it is not uncommon (e.g., James 1:16; 2 Macc. 7:18).

. Cf. Tob. 4:10; 12:8; 14:10; t. Peʾah 4:21.

. Dunn, Galatians, 322–23. On the preservation of Jesus tradition in this period, see, e.g., Keener, Historical Jesus; Keener and Wright, Biographies.

. Hays (“Christology and Ethics,” 287) and Barclay (Obeying, 133) note that Rom. 15:1–3 parallels Gal. 6:2 and appeals to Christ’s example.

. Oakes, Galatians, 180. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 311: “Christ’s own perfect living out of the saying regarding love.”

. John 13:14–15, 34–35; 1 John 2:6–8; 3:11, 16; cf. 3:23; 4:10–11, 19, 21; 2 John 5.

. E.g., Longenecker, Paul, 188–91; Longenecker, Galatians, 275–76. For interpreting the law christocentrically, as completed in Christ, see Schreiner, Galatians, 360.

. Dunn, Galatians, 323; cf. Longenecker, Galatians, 275–76; esp. Schürmann, “Gesetz,” 289.

. A notable and helpful exception, Winger (“Law”) rightly identifies the law of Christ here with the Spirit, but he contends that it does not involve Jesus’s teaching or example (537–38). To make this law entirely related to the Spirit, however, he must remove from consideration 1 Cor. 9:21, which does not mention the Spirit (545–56).

. So Dodd, Bible and Greeks, 37.

. Anaplēroō is not a technical term; Paul uses it in a variety of ways: 1 Cor. 14:16; 16:17; Phil. 2:30; 1 Thess. 2:16 (only this last reference possibly carrying any specifically “theological” sense). Paul may use it synonymously with fulfilling (πληρόω [plēroō]) the law in Gal. 5:14.

. Favoring the future, see, e.g., Metzger, Textual Commentary, 598 (with a C rating); Witherington, Grace, 426; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 310.

. Noted also by Dunn, Galatians, 324; Fee, Galatians, 233; Schreiner, Galatians, 361; cf. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.3 (Edwards).

. Noted also by Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 312.

. Noted also by Hansen, Galatians, 189; cf. Lambrecht, “Admonition.”

. Witherington, Grace, 426, suggesting that Paul might have in mind the agitators.

. Sanders (Paul, 483) notes the connection.

. With Das, Galatians, 613n89.

. With Witherington, Grace, 426.

. See, e.g., Rom. 11:20, 25; 12:3, 16; Phil. 2:3; also Dunn, Galatians, 324.

. My translation; note the similarity with Gal. 6:3: both contain εἰ τις δοκεῖ τι (ei tis dokei ti).

. Betz, Galatians, 301; Longenecker, Galatians, 276.

. Das (Galatians, 613n89) rightly notes that the terminology is not so distinct from Paul’s as to warrant insisting that it must be a quotation; Paul may have formulated it in his own words.

. Betz, Galatians, 302; Bruce, Galatians, 262; de Boer, Galatians, 382. See esp. Sorabji, Emotion, 213–14. On qualifications for proper evaluation, cf. Heraclitus, Ep. 4; Pliny E., Nat. pref. 29–30; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 8, p. 66.7–8; Lucian, Dem. 13; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 3.1, 5, 7; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.122; 9.2.20; Keener, Mind, 184–89.

. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:18; James 1:23; Jer. 37:9 (not LXX); cf. “Do not be deceived” in Gal. 6:7; 1 Cor. 6:9; 15:33; James 1:16; Ignatius, Magn. 8.1; Lysias, Or. 6.41, §106.

. Catullus, Carm. 22.13–21.

. The ideally wise are never deceived in Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11m, p. 94.25–28. Betrayed trust reflected badly only on the betrayer, however, if the betrayed had taken appropriate precautions (Polybius, Hist. 8.36.4).

. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:3 (Bray).

. Betz, Galatians, 301. On the dangers of evaluating sages by appearance, cf. John 7:24; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 1.10; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.24.529.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.24.19; cf., quite similarly, Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 8.52.

. Betz (Galatians, 301) cites Plato, Apol. 21BC, 41B, 41E. Renehan (“Quotations,” 23–24) cites here esp. Plato, Apol. 21D, 41E.

. Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.38. Socrates’s claim to know nothing (often noted, e.g., Aelius Aristides, Def. Or. 78, §25D) is lampooned in Lucian, Dial. D. 419 (6/20, Menippus and Aeacus 5); Hermot. 48. Skeptics also claimed to know nothing (Seneca Y., Lucil. 88.44; Lucian, Phil. Sale 27).

. E.g., Aeschylus, Suppl. 749.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 101.1. Cf. even Philostratus, Ep. 66 (8): no one will remember you after death, for if you are a nobody now, what will you be when you no longer exist?

. Musonius Rufus, Frag. 48, p. 140.16 (Lutz, p. 141). Cf. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.13; 42.1; but this is feigned self-deprecation.

. Epictetus, Ench. 13, in Betz, Galatians, 301; Betz also cites Epictetus, Diatr. 4.8.39, and Epictetus’s anecdote on Socrates, in Diatr. 2.8.24f; 4.6.24; Ench. 33.12; 48.2–3.

. Wis. 9:6.

. Cf., e.g., Chabert, “Βάρη”; Oakes, Galatians, 181, contrasting also boasting in themselves (6:4) versus only in cross (6:13).

. Best, Thessalonians, 178; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 335.

. Cf. Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:4 (Bray). Technically, Paul may speak of not boasting about our positive self-assessment to others (Martyn, Galatians, 550; deSilva, Readings, 288–89; Barclay, Gift, 438), but the flow of context from 6:1 also suggests that this assessment rests on comparison with others (cf. Moo, Galatians, 380).

. For Gal. 6:1–5 contrasting with Paul’s approach under the law, cf. also Garlington, “Burden Bearing,” 153.

. Witherington, Grace, 427–28; noted with apparent approval in Das, Galatians, 362.

. Cf., e.g., Thucydides, Hist. 3.61.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.1.1; Cicero, Div. Caec. 11.36; 12.37, 40; Fam. 5.12.8; Quintilian, Inst. 11.1.15–19; Pliny Y., Ep. 1.8.4–6, 13; 7.4.10; 9.15; Plutarch, Cic. 24.1; M. Cato 14.2; 19.5; esp. Plutarch, Praising (Mor. 539A–547F); Marshall, Enmity, 353–57; Watson, “Boasting”; Mitchell, “Perspective.”

. See Forbes, “Comparison,” 134–50; Forbes, “Self-Praise.”

. Dunn, Galatians, 324. Dunn (325) cites examples of accepted boasting in Paul’s letters that support “appropriate self-respect” (Rom. 15:17; 1 Cor. 9:15; 2 Cor. 1:12; 10:9–10, 13–17; 11:10, 30; 12:5–6, 9; Phil. 2:16); Marshall (“Boast”) emphasizes the propriety of boasting in God rather than in human achievement. On sound self-estimates, cf. also, e.g., Euripides, frg. 963; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.1; Fronto, M. Caes. 4.3.1; Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 23.3.

. Paul does not repeat the plural of ἔργον (ergon) here because he allows for positive works (cf. the verb ἐργάζομαι [ergazomai] in Gal. 6:10), as in Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:58; 16:10; 2 Cor. 9:8; Phil. 1:22; 2:30; 1 Thess. 1:3; for both kinds, see Rom. 2:6.

. With Matera, Galatians, 221.

. Dunn, Galatians, 325–26.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 335; cf. Lambrecht, “Admonition,” 53–54; Das, Galatians, 616.

. Witherington, Grace, 429, seeing Gal. 6:6 as an exception to the principle. Betz (Galatians, 304) goes so far as to find here the philosophic ideal of αὐτάρκεια (autarkeia), self-sufficiency (cf. also Thom, “Akousmata,” 108). This was certainly a widely valued principle: see, e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.7.6–8, 1097b; Epictetus, Diatr. 2.2.3; Plutarch, Virt. 3 (Mor. 101B); Aulus Gellius, Att. 2.29.17–20; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 3.11.2; Socratics, Ep. 8; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.1.11; 2 Cor. 9:8; Phil. 4:11; 1 Tim. 6:6. One could articulate such a concept without the term (e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.9.32).

. With Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.5 (Edwards); Matera, Galatians, 215, 222; Kuck, “Burden”; Schreiner, Galatians, 354; Moo, Galatians, 381; Barclay, Gift, 438; tentatively, Das, Galatians, 617.

. E.g., Dunn, Galatians, 326; Lambrecht, “Admonition”; tentatively, Witherington, Grace, 429. Cf. the future tense of “fulfill” in Gal. 6:2.

. Cf. also, e.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 362. Admittedly, the situation in terms of aspectual theory would be more complex.

. Hurtado, “Collection,” 53–56; Davis, “Severianus,” 301.

. Against Hurtado, Downs (Offering, 34) notes the lack of reference to the collection elsewhere in Galatians.

. Hurtado (“Collection,” 56), however, citing Rom. 15:26 and 1 Cor. 16:1, suggests that the Galatians may have backed out of the collection.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.6; Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.6 (Edwards); Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:6; Witherington, Grace, 418–19; Schreiner, Galatians, 367.

. In Judea, public teaching was probably especially traditionally the work of priests; see 2 Chron. 15:3; Neh. 8:9; Ezek. 22:26; Mic. 3:11; 1 Esd. 9:49; Sir. 45:17; Josephus, Ant. 8.395; cf. Deut. 24:8; 2 Kings 17:27–28.

. On spiritual and material reciprocity, cf. deSilva, Honor, 154.

. See, e.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 6.6.3; Statius, Silv. 4.9; Libanius, Anec. 1.20; Symmachus, Ep. 1.104; Herman, “Gift”; Highet, “Reciprocity”; Harrison, Grace, 1, 15, 50–53, 196, 348, esp. here 40–43; cf. Euripides, Hyps. frg. 759a.63/1584. For the need for gratitude for benefaction, see, e.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 6.4.7; Sir. 3:31; Cicero, Fam. 13.22.2; 13.25.1; 13.26.4; Pliny Y., Ep. 3.2.6; 4.13.10.

. With Strelan, “Burden-Bearing,” 276; Dunn, Galatians, 327; Witherington, Grace, 430.

. With Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.6; Schreiner, Galatians, 368.

. Moo, Galatians, 382; Witherington, Grace, 420.

. Braxton, “Galatians,” 345.

. Witherington, Grace, 429; Schreiner, Galatians, 368, citing Deut. 28:11; Luke 12:18–19; 16:25; Sir. 22:23.

. Fee, Galatians, 236.

. See Did. 13.1–7.

. Ramsay, Galatians, 458.

. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67; Ferguson, “Worship,” 15.

. For this practice, see, e.g., Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.69. But some thinkers warned against any situation that would obligate them to wealthy patrons, prejudicing their free speech (Peterson, Eloquence, 67–68, citing six sources).

. Hock, Social Context, 52–58.

. E.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 3.22.10; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 10; Pseudo-Crates, Ep. 17; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.46, 56, 59; 10.119; Lucian, Cynic 2; cf. Aristippus in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.70, 82. Cf. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 246–49; Hock, Social Context, 55–56; Winter, Philo and Paul, 46–47.

. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32.9; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.119; Lucian, Fisherman 42; Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 34; Socrates, Ep. 1. For one debate about the propriety of Cynic simplicity, see Lucian, Cynic 1, 2, 4, 11, 17, 19, 20.

. Pseudo-Diogenes, Ep. 11; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.49.

. Hock, Social Context, 58–59. Still, there were a number of exceptions, such as Cleanthes (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.5.170).

. Xenophon, Mem. 1.2.60; cf. Mem. 1.6.11–13; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 2.27; cf. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 41.

. Plutarch, Stoic Contr. 20 (Mor. 1043E); Lucian, Hermot. 9; Phil. Sale 24; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.10.494. Sophists were known for charging fees (e.g., Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.11.591; 2.21.604), but we do read of some who used a sliding scale (Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.21.519) or who waived fees for the needy (Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.23.606). Charging fees was standard for most schools (Watson, “Education,” 311). Philodemus (Prop. col. 23.23–29) regarded receiving gifts for teachings the noblest form of income (Tsouna [Philodemus, 100n66] cites Diogenes Laertius, Lives 10.121, for a similar opinion). Stoics in this period differed regarding propriety in receiving pay (Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11m, pp. 90–91.14–29).

. E.g., Plato, Resp. 2.364BC; Leg. 10.908DE; Isocrates, Antidosis (Or. 15); In sophistas (Or. 13); Rhet. Alex. pref. 1421a.32–34; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 27.8; Phaedrus, Fab. 1.14.17–18; Lucian, Doub. Ind. 6–7, 8, 11; Runaways 4, 12, 14, 17, 20; Fisherman 42; Tim. 54–57; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 6.41; Apoll. ep. 3, 5, 15, 35, 51; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 247–51, 256; Tell, “Wisdom.”

. Cf. Malherbe, “Gentle.”

. See, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 35.4, 8, 15; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 285–87; Malherbe, “Gentle,” 214; Cynics against their opponents in Neumann, “Gewinn.”

. E.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 54.3; Plutarch, Arist. 25.3–5; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.29.621; Philostratus, Apoll. ep. 42.

. Apuleius, Apol. 23; for the emphasis on students and teachers sharing all good things (adapting a common ancient statement about friends), and for medical apprentices’ commitment to share with their teachers in times of need (enshrined in the Hippocratic oath), see Betz, Galatians, 305; followed by Das, Galatians, 618; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 314.

. Oakes, Galatians, 182.

. Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.6, whose language evokes Acts 2:44. See Keener, Acts, 1:1013–21.

. That Paul does not ask for or even accept the Corinthians’ personal support (2 Cor. 11:7–9) makes it unlikely that he would drop hints of financial need when he was concerned about his converts’ apostasy.

. Cf. deSilva, Readings, 290.

. Although Paul apparently did not have long in this region to instruct the believers (Acts 13:50; 14:6, 20, 22–23), this may have also been true of Macedonian churches; Corinth, where Paul taught longer (Acts 18:11), also experienced rival teachers and misunderstandings.

. Epictetus, Diatr. 2.20.7; 2.22.15; 4.6.23; Mark 13:5; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 2 Thess. 2:3; James 1:16; 2 Macc. 7:18; Ignatius, Eph. 16.1; Magn. 8.1; Phld. 3.3; Betz, Galatians, 306; Longenecker, Galatians, 279. Cf. 2 Kings 18:29; 19:10; 2 Chron. 32:15; Isa. 36:14; 37:10; Jer. 29:8; Lysias, Or. 6.41, §106; Philo, Migration 12.

. Cf. also priests in 1 Macc. 7:34; possibly God in Ezek. 8:17.

. Anderson, Glossary, 78. Lightfoot (Galatians, 218) renders idiomatically, “to turn up the nose at.” On mockery or sarcasm more generally, see Anderson, Glossary, 126.

. E.g., Ps. 126:5–6 (figurative in context); Philostratus, Her. 1.5.

. Cf. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.6–10 (Edwards); John Prime, Exposition of Galatians, on Gal. 6:6 (Bray); Witherington, Grace, 418–19, 431. In 2 Cor. 9:6, Paul uses LXX Prov. 22:8, fuller than our Hebrew text; so Witherington (Grace, 431) could be right to emphasize it here. Schreiner (Galatians, 368) rightly discerns a larger principle but with a focus on giving.

. For 6:7–10 revisiting themes for the whole of 5:13–6:6, see, e.g., Snyman, “Modes.”

. Paul does use the image of “fruit” elsewhere in financial contexts; see Rom. 15:28; 1 Cor. 9:7; Phil. 4:17; cf. 2 Tim. 2:6; the extended financial sense does appear elsewhere (cf. the verb in Musonius Rufus, Lect. 14, p. 92.23; though for its relative rareness in the papyri, see Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 321). It fits naturally with the image of sowing, sometimes synonymous with harvest; e.g., Lev. 25:3; Ps. 107:37 (LXX 106:37); Isa. 37:30; figuratively, Sir. 6:19; Philo, Embassy 293; John 4:36; James 3:18; 1 Clem. 24.5.

. DeSilva, Honor, 150n59, citing Seneca Y., Ben. 1.1.2; 2.11.4–5; 4.8.2; 4.33.1–2; 7.32; Ps.-Phoc. 152.

. On maxims, e.g., Rowe, “Style,” 148; Porter, “Paul and Letters,” 583. Various commentators (Lightfoot, Galatians, 219; Betz, Galatians, 307; Barclay, Obeying, 164; Dunn, Galatians, 329–30) cite, e.g., Job 4:8; Ps. 126:5; Prov. 22:8; Hosea 8:7; Luke 19:21–22; T. Levi 13:6; 4 Ezra 4:28–32; Plato, Phaedr. 260D; Aristotle, Rhet. 3.3.4; Demosthenes, Crown 159; Cicero, Or. Brut. 2.65; Plautus, Merc. 71. For further and often closer parallels, see North, “Sowing.”

. Hesiod, Meg. 1.

. Sir. 7:3.

. Philo, Embassy 293; Confusion 21, 152; Unchangeable 166; Names 268–69; Dreams 2.76.

. For reward in Jewish sources, see, e.g., Wis. 5:15; m. ʾAbot 2:2; Sipra ʾAḥ. M. par. 8.193.1.11; Sipra Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; cf. Mark 9:41; Matt. 5:12 // Luke 6:23; Matt. 5:11–12, 46; 6:1; 10:41–42; Rev. 22:12. For punishment fitting the crime, see, e.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 20.62.2; Prov. 26:27; Sir. 27:25–27; 2 Macc. 4:38; 9:5–6; 13:7–8; L.A.B. 44:9–10; 45:3; 1QpHab 11.5, 7, 15; 12.5–6; 1 En. 98:5; Jub. 4:32; 35:10–11; 37:5, 11; m. ʾAbot 2:6/7; Sipre Deut. 238.3.1. The concept of action with built-in consequences rather than divine retribution (Koch, “Retribution,” 82) may have made sense to ancient Israelite sages, but that is not Paul’s point here (see Gal. 6:8, probably taking its introductory ὅτι [hoti], untranslated in the NRSV, as explanatory, with Schreiner, Galatians, 368; Moo, Galatians, 385).

. Cf., e.g., Prov. 26:27 // Eccl. 10:8a; the “proverb” in Pseudo-Callisthenes, Alex. 1.19 (trans. K. Dowden): “Whoever makes trouble for another, makes trouble for himself.” In Sipre Deut. 238.3.1, getting what one deserves is drinking from one’s own urine.

. Davis, “Severianus,” esp. 298–99, on Severianus’s interpretation, and 300–301.

. Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 2.6.8 (also including other Jewish customs); Betz, Galatians, 308; Oakes, Galatians, 182; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 316.

. With Moo, Galatians, 386. Focusing on their ethnic descent, circumcision, and other fleshly matters would ultimately yield other self-focused signs of the flesh (Dunn, Galatians, 330; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 316).

. Hamilton, Spirit and Eschatology, 19; Fee, Galatians, 239; de Boer, Galatians, 387–88.

. Cf. T. Ab. 18:11 A, although envisioning the breath of life; m. Soṭah 9:15; y. Šeqal. 3:3; y. Sanh. 10:3, §1; Gen. Rab. 26:6; Exod. Rab. 48:4; perhaps 1 En. 71:10–11; Sib. Or. 4.46, 189–90.

. With, e.g., Ladd, “Spirit in Galatians,” 214; de Boer, Galatians, 388.

. 4 Ezra 4:30–32; 2 Bar. 70:2; Gen. Rab. 83:5; cf. Matt. 3:12 // Luke 3:17; Matt. 13:39; Rev. 14:15; 16:16. Until Bar Kokhba, m. ʾAbot 2:15–16 may have been understood eschatologically (Silberman, “Proclamation”).

. 2 Macc. 7:9; 4 Macc. 15:3; CD 3.20; 1QS 4.7; 4Q181 f1.4; 4Q418 f69.ii.13; Pss. Sol. 3:12; 13:11; 1 En. 37:4; T. Ash. 5:2; Philo, Flight 78; m. ʾAbot 2:7; Sipre Deut. 305.3.2–3; CIJ 1:422, §569; 1:474, §661; 2:443, §1536; cf. CD 7.6; 4 Macc. 17:18; Sipra ʾAḥ. M. par. 8.193.1.10.

. E.g., Mark 10:17, 30; Matt. 25:46; Jude 21; 2 Clem. 5.5; 8.4; Ignatius, Eph. 18.1; Pol. 2.3; Mart. Pol. 14.2; Did. 10.3; Herm. 7.2; 16.4; 24.5. It appears pervasively in Johannine literature: John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20.

. Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; Gal. 6:8; 1 Tim. 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7.

. Cicero, Rep. 6.17.17; Philo, Confusion 154; Dreams 1.151; Heir 209, 239, 276; Alleg. Interp. 2.77; Rewards 68; Plutarch, Is. Os. 78 (Mor. 382F); E Delph. 18 (Mor. 392A); Iamblichus, Anim. 8.43, §456; Porphyry, Marc. 33.515–17. See further Bauckham, Jude, 182. The Jewish Middle Platonist Philo employs the term phthora about 140 times.

. One could also be corrupted morally or intellectually, as in Musonius Rufus, Lect. 6, p. 52.30–31; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.5–6; 8.8; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 9.2. Meditating on heavenly realms could liberate one’s soul from material corruption (Maximus of Tyre, Or. 11.10).

. With Marshall, Kept, 112.

. Cf. Barclay, Gift, 441.

. E.g., Euripides, Temen. frg. 745; 1QS 4.9; 1QM 14.6–7; 1QpHab 7.11; Philo, Prelim. Studies 164 (Lane, Hebrews, 426–27); cf. Eph. 3:13; Heb. 12:12. Paul himself resists such discouragement in 2 Cor. 4:1, 16; only one NT use of this verb, ἐγκακέω (enkakeō, Luke 18:1; cf. 2 Clem. 2.2), falls outside the Pauline corpus.

. The gospel tradition uses these words (ποιέω + καλός, poieō + kalos) for bearing good fruit (Matt. 3:10 // Luke 3:9; Matt. 7:17–18 // Luke 6:43), and, using ἀγαθός (agathos), for Jesus (Mark 3:4) or others (John 5:29) doing what is good. Paul applies it in a general way (Rom. 7:21; 2 Cor. 13:7; cf. James 4:17; 1 Clem. 8.4 [quoting Isa. 1:17]; 60.2; Diogn. 4.3; with agathos, Rom. 13:3; Eph. 6:8; cf. 1 Pet. 3:11; 1 Clem. 22.4; Herm. 56.3; 97.4).

. With, e.g., Fee, Galatians, 241.

. Good works or work appears (with agathos) in Rom. 2:7; 13:3; 2 Cor. 9:8; Eph. 2:10; Col. 1:10; 2 Thess. 2:17; 1 Tim. 2:10; 5:10; 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:21; 3:17; Titus 3:1; unfitness for good work in Titus 1:16; God’s work in believers in Phil. 1:6; it is monetary in 2 Cor. 9:8; 1 Tim. 6:18 (with kalos). “Good work” or “works” appear (with kalos, as here) in the Pastoral Epistles: 1 Tim. 3:1; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14. Elsewhere in early Christianity, with agathos, see Acts 9:36; 1 Clem. 2.7; 33.1, 7; 38.2; cf. Herm. 38.8; with kalos, see Matt. 5:16; Mark 14:6; Heb. 10:24; 1 Pet. 2:12; 2 Clem. 12.4; cf. Herm. 55.7; Jesus’s work in John 10:32. The phrase is not from the LXX (unless we count the substantive plural of agathos in Sir. 12:1; 18:15; 20:16). Nevertheless, “good works” or similar phrases did not originate in the NT; they appear also in Philo, Worse 35; Sacrifices 53; and for Moses’s teaching in Migration 24.

. E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 28:2.

. Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.16–22; Cicero, Fam. 15.17.3 (citing a Stoic maxim). I adapt this material from Keener, Mind, 160–61.

. See, e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 4, p. 46.36–37; 7, p. 58.25; 8, p. 60.10; 15, p. 96.25; 16, p. 102.35; 16, p. 104.35–36; Epictetus, Diatr. 1.22.1; 4.7.9; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b1, p. 12.15; 2.7.5e, p. 30.1–2; 2.7.5g, p. 32.1–9; 2.7.5h, p. 32.19–24; 2.7.5i, p. 32.25–32; 2.7.5k, p. 32.33–34, p. 34.1–6; 2.7.5 L, p. 34.17–20; 2.7.5m, p. 36.10–12; 2.7.6d, p. 38.34–41.3; 2.7.7g, p. 50.23–26; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 5.15; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.1.92, 98; Sextus Empiricus, Eth. 2.22 (on Stoics). See further Frede, “Conception”; Murray, Philosophy, 28–30, 36–38, 43.

. Cicero, Fin. 2.12.35–2.13.43; cf. also Long, Philosophy, 199. Cicero agrees that virtue must belong to the chief good (Fin. 3.1.2), although thinkers could debate whether it was (3.7.26–3.9.31; 3.10.33–3.11.36) or was not (against the Stoics, 4.16.43) the only good.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Lucil. 71. Plato also emphasized the supreme good; see Lodge, Ethics, 343–477, esp. 442–55. Opposing Plato’s idea of the good, see Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.6.1–7.2, 1096a ff.; Eth. eud. 1.8.1–22, 1217b–1218b.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 66.31; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 38, lines 26–30; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.5b2, p. 14.27–29; Pseudo-Anacharsis, Ep. 2.9–11.

. Let. Aris. 225. For a good man, cf. T. Sim. 4:4; T. Benj. 3:1 (also a concern of Stoics, e.g., Epictetus, Diatr. 1.12.7; 3.26.27–28; 4.10.11; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 6.30.1; 10.17, 32; 11.5; and others, e.g., Antisthenes, in Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.12).

. Isaacs, Spirit, 30, citing Philo, Sacrifices 54; Flight 131.

. Isaacs, Spirit, 30, citing Philo, Creation 8. She contrasts this approach with Plato, who identified the good with God (citing Resp. 6.504D; 508E); cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:201–2.

. m. Ber. 9:2; cf. Philo, Alleg. Interp. 1.34; 3.73; Cherubim 27–29, 127; Unchangeable 73, 108; Moses 2.132.

. E.g., b. Ber. 5a; y. Roš Haš. 3:8, §5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 15:5.

. E.g., b. Ber. 17a; 32b; b. Šabb. 32a, 137b; b. Yoma 87a.

. The image was not limited to Jesus; cf., somewhat later than Paul, 2 Bar. 70:2; 4 Ezra 4:30–32; 8:41; Gen. Rab. 83:5.

. Mark 4:29, 32; Matt. 13:39; cf. realized eschatology in Matt. 9:37–38 // Luke 10:2; Mark 4:20; Matt. 21:41; John 4:35.

. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 20, 1433b.30–31; 22, 1434b.5–8; 36, 1444b.21–35; examples in Cicero, Fin. 3.9.31; Quinct. 28.85–29.90; Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.50–51; Decl. 249.14; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 3, p. 42.23–29; Lev. 11:44–47; 18:24–30; 20:22–23; 1 Cor. 14:40.

. It can refer to a key time, as in Rom. 5:6; 2 Cor. 6:2; 2 Thess. 2:6; to the time of the Lord’s return, 1 Cor. 4:5; to this present age, Rom. 3:26; 8:18; 11:5.

. The meaning in Eph. 5:16a // Col. 4:5b could refer to “opportunity” or to the character of the time, as I suggest here in Gal. 6:10.

. With Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 2.6.10, on Gal. 6:10 (Edwards); Lohse, Colossians, 168n31.

. E.g., Seneca Y., Dial. 8.1.4.

. Rom. 12:14–21; 13:10; 1 Cor. 14:23; Phil. 4:5; Col. 4:5a; 1 Thess. 5:15; cf. Acts 10:38; 27:34; 28:2–3; Phil. 2:4; 1 Tim. 2:1; 4:10; Titus 3:2; Heb. 12:14. See discussion in Longenecker, Remember the Poor.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.9–10 (Edwards); Julian the Apostate, Let. 22, to Arsacius. Later, however, Rudolf Gwalther (Serm. Gal., on Gal. 6:10 [Bray]) homiletically complains that Christians neglect their own more than do others.

. Jerome (Comm. Gal. 3.6.10 [Edwards]) considers this the primary referent.

. With Hansen, Galatians, 196n. Cf. also the church as God’s household in 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Pet. 4:17.

. Some cite also the pervasive phrase “the house of Israel” (over 150 times in the OT and Apocrypha). See also Dunn, Galatians, 333; Moo, Galatians, 389; but for the divergence in wording, see Hays, “Galatians,” 337 (none of the LXX references use Gal. 6:10’s oikeios). Dunn (Galatians, 333) cites, e.g., a “faithful/reliable house” in CD 3.19 (most relevantly); “household of law” in CD 20.10, 13; “house of truth” in 1QS 5.6; 8.9; “holy house” in 1QS 8.5; “house of Israel” also in Pss. Sol. 17:42. Driver (Scrolls, 525) regards these “household” labels as an ancient cliché (comparing “household of wisdom” in Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.5; a similar phrase in Iamblichus, Vit. pyth. 30.176). Some Jewish tradition also prioritized local help, as in t. B. Qam. 11:3; Goodman, State, 39.

↑ Back to top