Closing Appeal (6:11–18)

Galatians 6:11–18

Closing Appeal (6:11–18)

Paul finally closes this agonizing letter in 6:11–18. Paul occasionally includes final greetings to individuals in the congregations to whom he writes (Rom. 16:3–16; Col. 4:15–17) or, more often, greetings from his colleagues (Rom. 16:21–23; 1 Cor. 16:19–20; Phil. 4:21–22; Col. 4:10–14; Philem. 23–24); the absence here of such greetings might characterize the strained relations, or possibly indicate that some of the Galatians’ leaders have gone over to the side of his adversaries. Then again, Paul does not include greetings in two of his earlier letter closings, 1 Thess. 5 and 2 Thess. 3, and he is very brief in 2 Cor. 13:12 (though this letter was also a strained one at many points).

Whatever the degree to which wider practices of persuasion inform Galatians, Paul surely does revisit some earlier themes here. In the closing perorations of speeches, persuaders often summarized key themes, tried to arouse passionate emotions, and emphasized their own character (ἦθος, ēthos) in contrast to that of their opponents. Many scholars do find Paul revisiting some themes from earlier in the letter here, including circumcision (2:3, 7; 5:2–3, 6; 6:12–13, 15), the cross (3:1; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14), persecution (1:13, 23; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12), and Paul’s relationship with the Galatians (cf. esp. 4:12–20). Letter postscripts also sometimes included summaries, though not all agree that 6:11–18 does function as such a summary.

More clearly, Paul does passionately drive home key points that contrast his character with that of his rivals. They want to look good in the flesh and boast in the Galatians’ flesh (6:12–13), whereas Paul boasts only in Jesus’s cross (6:14). They are trying to avoid being persecuted for the cross (6:12), whereas Paul shares Christ’s wounds, likely referring to those inflicted on him when he was persecuted (6:17; cf. 2 Cor. 4:9–11). Paul’s opponents want to impose circumcision and a law that they themselves do not keep (6:12–13), whereas Paul proclaims the new creation (6:15).

6:11

11Notice the large size of this script, which I’m writing with my own hand.

When Paul says that he makes large letters with his own hand, some readers throughout history have suggested that he refers to the entire Letter to the Galatians as a “large letter.” Certainly, by the standards of the typical papyrus letter, Galatians is long. They argue that Paul’s aorist verb (ἔγραψα, egrapsa) should be translated as “I wrote,” referring to the letter already written up to this point. It is, however, likely an epistolary aorist as in 1 Cor. 5:11; 9:15; Philem. 19, 21; and Rom. 15:15. Moreover, when Paul refers to an epistolary sort of letter, he normally refers to an ἐπιστολή (epistolē; Rom. 16:22; 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 3:2; 1 Thess. 5:27); here, instead, he uses γράμμα (gramma) in the plural, which makes more sense when applied to alphabetical letters (e.g., Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:6). Thus, nearly all scholars today construe Paul’s letters here as alphabetic letters. They argue therefore not that Paul wrote by his own hand the entire letter, but rather that he begins in his own handwriting here.

Paul often used an amanuensis; this is explicit in Rom. 16:22, but it also seems clear whenever Paul signs a letter in a way that is identifiably different from the rest of the letter (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19). This was common practice, including among the literate elite. Many ancient business documents include closing greetings in a handwriting style distinct from that of the rest of the letter.

That Paul writes in his own hand communicates several possible points. First, it reminds the Galatians that Paul was among the minority of people literate enough to do so; if perchance his rivals were educated, so was he (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10; 11:6, 22; Gal. 1:14).

Second, writing this section in his own hand might help authenticate the letter, although Paul’s distinctive voice is clear enough in Galatians to leave little doubt of its authenticity. Paul settled for a signature in his other letters, but a closing summary in an author’s handwriting offered a higher level of authentication. Handwriting did authenticate a letter.

Third, Paul may augment pathos by showing that the matter is so important to him as to warrant his extra effort on the Galatians’ behalf. Fourth, even aside from pathos, he is revealing the importance of this matter. Normally, he signs only his name or a little more; here he apparently starts writing in his own hand from 6:11 forward. Writing with one’s own hand revealed personal commitment and often affection, and/or the importance of the person being addressed. This observation remains relevant on any of the proposed explanations for Paul’s large letters, discussed below.

Scholars have proposed various reasons for Paul’s mention of the large size of this script. On any of these views, the action shows a special effort and interest on Paul’s part, so the most important element of meaning is ultimately not affected by which more specific view is deemed likeliest. Also on any of these views, most people in the congregations would not be able to read the letter itself, both due to literacy levels and the unavailability of extra copies of the letter; someone would read the copy of the letter to the congregation. So Paul needs to remark about the large letters in his comments themselves.

1. One view is that Paul’s eyesight was poor. Someone suffering from eye inflammation might indeed dictate a letter and keep it brief. Nevertheless, the actual evidence cited for this position (Gal. 4:15) is not compelling.

2. A second possibility is that Paul’s hands were damaged. Modern parallels show how manual labor coarsens the hands; skeletal remains demonstrate how peasants’ bodies were deformed by their hard labor. Working in unheated shops in winter could have affected Paul’s ability to write in smaller letters, as some scholars have suggested. Thus Fronto complains that the cold makes it difficult to write, and he does not want to extend his hand outside his sheets. Likewise, sickness, arm pain, or crippled hands could make it difficult to write with one’s own hands.

Yet Paul, unlike sources mentioning sickness affecting ability to write, nowhere attributes such inability to any sickness (cf. Gal. 4:13–14), so how would the Galatians have known to infer that he was signaling this? It would be relevant here only if injury came in the direct service of ministry, especially persecution (6:17), an injury about which the Galatians could have known but about which we can at most speculate. Also, Paul cites the letters’ size, not their irregularity.

3. One might write in large letters in order to invite a child to trace inside the letters. Paul might invite the Galatians to follow his model like children following their teacher’s writing template. He could indeed treat the Galatians like children (Gal. 4:19).

4. Others suggest that Paul wrote large script for emphasis. This is the most common view and one of the likeliest views. But surely this is not the only place where Paul wants to emphasize his thought, yet it is the only place where Paul mentions the large letters, an observation that weakens this hypothesis.

5. Others suggest that Paul was not accustomed to writing and thus wrote with large block letters rather than the smaller, thus faster, style of professional scribes. Thus Chrysostom suggested that Paul was acknowledging his poor handwriting. Even literate people of status usually had little practice writing because they could depend on scribes. Scribes actually wrote in variously sized letters, but Paul’s were larger than his scribe’s.

6. Perhaps Paul simply draws attention to the script different from that of the scribe’s so that the Galatians will recognize his special effort here. A person’s distinctive handwriting was often discernible to others, and some suggest that some in Galatia would recognize Paul’s. Still, Paul could have noted that the script was unusual or even large without the more emphatic “so large” (πηλίκος, pēlikos). While view 6 (noting the distinctiveness of Paul’s script) is likely correct, it seems best combined with either view 4 or view 5. Views 4–6 presuppose information available to the Galatians—namely, Paul’s handwriting style and ancient scribal practices.

6:12

12It’s those who want to show a good face with respect to the flesh who are trying to force you to be circumcised. They’re doing this just so they can’t be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

Paul places his opponents’ motives at the center of a chiastic charge in 6:12–13:

A They want to show a good face with respect to the flesh.

B They are trying to force you to be circumcised.

C They do not want to be persecuted for the cross of Christ.

C′ They don’t observe the law themselves.

B′ They want you to be circumcised—

A′ just so they can boast in your flesh.

It was customary, when charging someone, to offer a credible motive, which Paul does here. It was also customary to depict opponents in a bad light, which Paul also does here.

These interlopers want to show a good face with respect to the flesh, Paul warns (6:12). They are sowing with respect to the flesh, to their own damnation (6:7–8), but their interest is not simply their own flesh: their showing off in the flesh is clearly related here to boasting in the Galatians’ flesh (6:13).

The term translated as show a good face (εὐπροσωπέω, euprosōpeō) is a rare term related to an adjective that refers to having an attractive face; some thus relate it ironically to the Greek emphasis on the beauty of the body, noting that Greeks, by contrast, regarded circumcision not as beautiful but as mutilation. (The detestability of circumcision was the reason for its effacement before competing in Greek gymnasia.) Nevertheless, the verb appears before Paul’s day with reference to winning the favor of neighbors, not physiology. It is significant in any case in a culture where honor and shame were central to personal identity. For the sake of guarding their own honor, Paul’s rivals are ready to shame the Galatians in their own gentile context!

Paul’s opponents were trying to force circumcision on gentiles not physically (which would certainly have incurred the wrath of local gentile authorities), but rather by persuasion that he deems deceptive. Like Peter, who was effectively ready to force gentiles to become Jews because he feared external pressure (2:14), Paul’s opponents try to do the same because of their external pressures. Although “compelling” circumcision might appear among heroic exploits in an earlier period, educated Diaspora Jews would disapprove of forcing it on gentiles in the present, when it was sure to create a backlash. This depiction of Paul’s rivals thus would characterize them negatively for almost any hearer in the Diaspora.

Paul emphasizes that he suffers persecution for proclaiming the cross (5:11); his rivals, by contrast, avoid persecution precisely by not proclaiming (the absolute sufficiency of) the cross. This is not the only time that Paul sets rivals in their place by citing his own credentials of persecution, credentials that his adversaries lack (2 Cor. 11:23–33); suffering was essential to Paul’s understanding of genuine apostleship (1 Cor. 4:9–13; cf. Matt. 10:16–39), and those who avoided it at the expense of the truth or who exalted themselves were false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13).

The specific source of the persecution that Paul’s adversaries evaded is more open to debate. Here the source is not Paul’s opponents themselves (as perhaps in Gal. 4:29), since they are the ones fearing persecution. Some suggest that the persecution involves civic authorities or the local imperial cult (a major cult especially in Pisidian Antioch by this period). Gentiles could be exempt if they became Jews—that is, if by circumcision they joined the people already tolerated as monotheists. (Some even connect this exemption with Judaism’s status as a “legal religion,” but most scholars today doubt that it had such a status technically.) As Jerome notes, Roman laws “permitted the Jews . . . to live by their own code. . . . But anyone who was not circumcised and by his uncircumcision proclaimed himself no Jew became liable to persecution.”

While such standardization of status would have been helpful, in most places in this period civic authorities would not have been enforcing the imperial cult. Moreover, it is not the Galatians but Paul’s rivals, who are already circumcised, who are seeking to evade persecution here. All persecution elsewhere in the letter is Jewish in origin.

Others thus suggest that the persecution came from local Jews, who would disapprove of the Jewish Christian leaders (from inside or outside Galatia) if they did not circumcise gentile members of their community. This position is plausible and could well be correct. Luke summarizes Paul’s message to new Galatian believers in terms of being ready for suffering (Acts 14:22). The pressure on Paul’s rivals could come from the hostility of nonbelieving Jews in south Galatia. Luke reports that some local Jews in Galatia had strenuously opposed Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:45, 50; 14:2, 4–5, 19), sometimes especially because of how they welcomed gentile sympathizers (13:45–48). Although the immediate tensions apparently subsided (14:21), there is little reason to think that relations with the divided synagogues would have improved substantially unless uncircumcised believers admitted that they were not yet members of God’s people. Some allow for both civic and local Jewish pressures, since uncircumcised gentile converts to Paul’s movement were not fulfilling either pagan civic expectations or Jewish ones.

Others plausibly suggest that Paul’s rivals were Judeans experiencing pressure from nationalistic sentiment in Jerusalem, which also affected the Jerusalem church. One form of this proposal speaks of pressure from Zealots, but the pressures could be from Judean nationalism more generally (cf. Peter’s concern in Gal. 2:12). The emphasis on Jerusalem in Gal. 4:25–26 makes better sense if Paul’s rivals came from there. These verses are not sufficiently explicit to rule out local pressures, but they likely weight the case toward including external ones.

Jerusalem attitudes and local attitudes are not in any case mutually exclusive sources of pressure; although travel was slow, Jewish travelers to and from the homeland would bring news, and reports from either location could affect attitudes in the other. Ancient sources do not distinguish “Jew” and “Judean,” since Jews were viewed as ethnic Judeans wherever they settled, just as were Romans or Egyptians. Likewise, Judean teachers would also likely connect with local synagogues as Paul had tried to do, perhaps trying to apologize for Paul and accommodate requests from their ethnic peers. In any event, the case for Jewish rather than gentile pressure here is strong. In a Jewish context, circumcising gentiles could even be a source for pride (6:13).

A CLOSER LOOK: CRUCIFIXION

Although the cross became a badge of honor for some Christians, through identifying with Christ (e.g., Gal. 6:14), it remained a shocking scandal for outsiders (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:17–18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12). The cross represented shameful execution by slow torture, a penalty typically reserved for low-class criminals and slaves.

Yet the cross required little explanation for Paul’s audience; it was well known in their world, though undoubtedly less common in Anatolia in this period than in more troublesome provinces like Judea. Jesus’s crucifixion by the Romans outside Jerusalem is an “almost indisputable” historical fact; early Christians would not have invented the crucifixion. Such invention could pretend to make sense only if we supposed that all the movement’s founders conspired to commit suicide in an elaborate but highly inefficient and fallible manner. It was the equivalent of announcing, “We are followers of a king you executed for treason, so you should execute us for treason too.” The full horror of that mode of execution (see discussion below) remained vivid enough in the first century that all four evangelists hurry by the event itself quickly, Matthew, for example, “disposing of it in a participial clause.” (It was established rhetorical practice to hurry most quickly over points that might disturb the audience.)

Although some features of crucifixions remained common, executioners could perform them in a variety of manners, limited only by the extent of their sadistic creativity. Thus, for example, one man is bound to a fig tree and anointed with honey so that the ants devour him, but this too is called a “cross” (cruciatum). Before the Roman conquest, following Hellenistic and Persian practice, Jewish executions had also adopted hanging by crucifixion. Though this practice was then read back into earlier times, Israelites originally hanged corpses posthumously and only till nightfall, limiting the shame. It was Romans, however, who popularized the practice most fully.

Executioners usually tied victims to the cross with ropes, but in some cases hastened their death by also nailing their wrists (Acts 2:23 [NET, NIV]; cf. John 20:25; Col. 2:14). The nails were typically five to seven inches long, enough to penetrate both the wrist and well into the wood of the cross. Scholars suggest that the upright stakes were usually ten feet at the highest, more often closer to six or seven feet so that the man hung barely above the ground, with a seat (sedile) in the middle; animals sometimes assaulted the feet of the crucified. Romans could employ high crosses to increase visibility for significant public executions, and Jesus may have been placed slightly higher than usual.

Crucifixion was treated as appropriate for, among other offenses, cases of treason against the majesty of the emperor or for revolutionaries—in other words, for political cases. This is undoubtedly the basis for Jesus’s crucifixion, since he is called “king of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19), a charge that his followers would hardly dare invent in the first-century Roman world (especially in the reign of Tiberius!), as noted above. While the charge against Jesus was undoubtedly political, it put him in the company of other despised groups. Vindictive conquerors sometimes used crucifixion to punish prisoners of war for resistance or war crimes. Avenging Tyre’s long resistance, Alexander sold its women and children into slavery and crucified its men.

Crucifixion was considered an apt penalty for wayward slaves; when a general crucified Roman deserters, a narrator decides not to describe more, since Romans disgracefully “suffered the punishment of slaves.”

Crucifixion could be employed as an example for the most awful sort of death. Needless to say, crucifixion was meant to be, and was understood as, a horrifying, shameful mode of execution—not the sort of event that disciples would create for the Lord they proclaimed, and preachable only in light of the resurrection.

6:13

13For even those who are circumcised don’t observe the law themselves. Instead, they want you to be circumcised just so they can boast in your flesh.

When Paul says that even those who are circumcised don’t observe the law themselves, some have suggested that Paul was applying this claim to all Jews; others reasonably contend that it is unlikely that Paul has suddenly shifted his referent from his opponents since 6:12. The distinction is valuable exegetically for this passage but is of less significance for Pauline theology as a whole. Even if Paul does speak more generally, he applies it more specifically to his opponents. Likewise, Paul may have in mind only the circumcision party as in 2:12, but in view of his argument elsewhere he would probably accept a broader application of the principle (cf. 3:10–12; 5:3).

Paul’s past experience gives him high standards for law observance that few other Jews, including his rivals, met (Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:5–6; cf. 2 Cor. 11:22). Some suggest that his rivals wanted to impose only circumcision (Gal. 5:2–3), the calendar (4:10), and probably food laws (2:12). We do not know of other Jewish groups that circumscribed the law to only these conspicuous markers, however. Moreover, only full converts underwent circumcision. A more likely limitation was the difficulty of fully keeping the Torah’s regulations while living in the Diaspora.

How did Paul know that his rivals don’t observe the law themselves? This charge was familiar intra-Jewish polemic, but Paul charged that all sinned (Rom. 3:20–23). For Paul, the law testified to the promise of Christ and the way of faith (see Gal. 4:21; Rom. 3:21, 31); his rivals, then, fell woefully short. Paul’s Christian understanding, which did not require him to excuse his own shortcomings, made clear that even desiring what was rightly another’s was sinful (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21), a sin that Paul likely assumed was widespread (Rom. 7:7). Most importantly in the context, Paul’s opponents did not keep the law because they were interested in showing off in the flesh rather than in suffering with the Messiah (Gal. 6:12).

The verb translated as boast (καυχάομαι, kauchaomai) is frequent in Paul, to whom belong thirty-five of the thirty-seven NT occurrences (as well as ten of the eleven instances of each of the two cognate nouns). The only two occurrences of the verb in Galatians appear in the present contrast in 6:13–14, but Paul elsewhere develops further the idea of one who boasts in the law while breaking it (Rom. 2:17), and of opponents with a false basis for boasting (2 Cor. 5:12; 10:8–17; 11:12, 18). Paul and other believers must boast in Christ (Rom. 5:11; 1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17); Paul will boast in his own weakness (cf. 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:5, 9), and not in his law-works (Phil. 3:2–5, esp. v. 3). (On boasting in the Greco-Roman world, see comment on Gal. 6:4.)

Paul’s depiction of the rivals’ desire to show off in the flesh (Gal. 6:12) now takes a grotesque turn: they want to boast in your flesh—that is, the flesh of the Galatians’ sliced foreskins. They wanted to boast in “their neighbor’s work” rather than their own (6:4).

6:14

14But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world was crucified to me and I to the world.

In contrast to his rivals’ plan to boast in the Galatians’ severed flesh (6:13), Paul boasts only in the flesh of Christ wounded in their stead (6:14; on legitimate grounds for boasting, see comment on 6:13). Whereas his rivals avoid being persecuted for the cross (6:12), it is the cross in which Paul boasts.

World (κόσμος, kosmos) can refer more generally to the “universe” or “humanity,” but here it refers to sinful humanity and its values (Rom. 3:6, 19; 5:12–13; 1 Cor. 2:12; 3:19; 5:10; 11:32; 2 Cor. 5:19; 7:10). From an early period some Christians exhorted dying to the world, but Paul’s use of the perfect tense of σταυρόω (stauroō, “crucify”) most likely suggests a finished act with continuing effects: with Christ, Paul has already died to the world (2:20). Identification with Jesus’s crucifixion also meant the embrace of shame, of public degradation as a criminal; in embracing Christ, Paul counted the cost and sacrificed concern for his own honor.

The crucifixion of the world (κόσμος), as far as Paul is concerned (6:14), entails not only death to the values of the present evil age (cf. 1:4) but also new life as part of the new creation (6:15). This new creation life involves a revolutionary new perspective on everything, viewing this age from the standpoint of Christ’s eschatological act in history and its consequences for eternity. Although the old age continues, Paul belongs to the world to come, which has already invaded history in Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit. On the new world’s valuation, circumcision or lack thereof no longer is of significance in light of what God has done in Christ (6:15); fleshly concerns belong to the period of minority (3:23–4:11).

6:15

15For it’s neither circumcision nor uncircumcision that ultimately matters. Instead, what matters is a new creation!

Some regard 6:15 as a pre-Pauline maxim; Paul could, however, have simply coined the expression himself and used it more than once. Some authors of Late Antiquity trace the phrase to the Apocalypse of Moses, but most scholars today find it first in Paul. Paul’s claim that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters (6:15a), which recurs in Gal. 5:6 and 1 Cor. 7:19, presumably reflects his normal view when not writing polemically. Just as one should not think one is anything when one is nothing (6:3), so physical markers such as circumcision (signifying high status for Paul’s rivals) and uncircumcision (a far better status from a gentile standpoint) are nothing in light of what really counts, the new creation. (See fuller discussion on this phrase at Gal. 5:6.) The physical marks that matter now are no longer circumcision, but rather (ideally) marks of persecution that reveal participation in the Messiah’s sufferings.

Early Judaism often spoke of new creation, but not always in the same way. The earliest and best-attested use of the language applies to the coming new world, the new heavens and earth (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). Jewish thinkers may have sometimes connected such language with God “creating” a new heart and spirit for his people.

Some later rabbis used it for a new beginning on Rosh Hashanah, after old sins had been removed. Someone whose sins were forgiven could thus be like a newborn child. Similarly, someone who converted another was considered as if having created the convert (cf. Gal. 4:19). A few later rabbis also connected deliverance from sin with a new birth of Israel at Sinai. Since conversion to Judaism is at issue in Galatians, this conversion background, if early enough, may be relevant here. A convert could be referred to as a new creature. Some thus construe new creation here as a matter of individual transformation.

Conversely, the biblical background, which was certainly available and widely evoked in Paul’s day, includes individual transformation but as part of a wider transformation of the world. In light of Paul’s death to the world in 6:14, a majority of interpreters envision the entire era of the new creation here. As Theodoret of Cyrrhus commented in the fifth century, “The strict meaning of new creation is the transformation of all things which will occur after the resurrection from the dead. For then the creation will be freed from sin’s burden and redeemed. Paul demonstrates that saving baptism is an image of things to come.”

In the present time, the new creation is expressed especially in believers, but it reflects the entire coming age. The promised Messiah has already come, so believers experience this new creation already although its consummation remains not-yet. In Paul’s theology, believers are in Christ, the last Adam (Rom. 5:15–21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45–49; see comment on Gal. 3:27–29), and have already begun to be restored to the divine image (Col. 3:10). Here, toward the end of his letter, Paul apparently recalls the truth that he noted toward the beginning: Christ has freed believers from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4). We therefore owe no allegiance to the elementary matters of this world (4:3, 9); we have been crucified to this world (6:14) and share in the resurrection life of the new one, the new creation.

6:16

16May God’s peace and mercy rest on all who will follow in the steps of this just-mentioned standard, and on God’s Israel.

All who will follow in the steps of this just-mentioned standard (6:16) would be those who participate in the new creation that transcends circumcision or uncircumcision (6:15), an observation that obviously must affect how we understand God’s Israel.

The word here rendered as will follow in the steps of is the verb στοιχέω (stoicheō), rendered as follow the footprints in 5:25. In 5:25, I concluded that it was an image of “walking” (corresponding to 5:16) in the path laid out by the Spirit. Given Paul’s fairly rare use of this word (beside these two times, only twice, at least one of them with this same sense, in Rom. 4:12), 6:16 undoubtedly does evoke 5:25, and in turn the thought of 5:13–25. The rule whose footprints believers follow is not the conventional understanding of the Torah, contrary to what Paul’s opponents presumably taught. Rather, it is the law of Christ (6:2), the way of love (5:6, 13–14), the new creation (6:15) effected in believers’ lives through the Spirit (5:16–23), the foretaste of the future new creation (5:5). As walking by the Spirit (5:16, 25) is the truest fulfillment of the law (5:18, 23; cf. Ezek. 36:27), those who walk by this standard are God’s Israel (Gal. 6:16).

The term rendered as standard is κανών (kanōn), which Paul elsewhere applies to proper spheres or geographic limits on ministry (2 Cor. 10:13, 15, 16). Conjoined with στοιχέω (stoicheō), it probably connotes following the exclusive trail blazed for us by the Spirit (cf. Rom. 4:12: walking in Abraham’s footsteps regarding faith). Josephus speaks of Moses’s rule or standard in the law and also how David’s actions became a pattern and rule for subsequent leaders. Philo uses kanōn twenty-seven times, normally to refer to a standard for what is right, including someone (Moses) whose life offered a pattern to follow; for Philo, Scripture contains the “rules of truth.”

Written works sometimes closed with a benediction. The letter body of Galatians falls between the curse for those who distort the gospel (1:8–9) and the blessing for those who adhere to it (6:16). Like the blessing of grace and peace in 1:3 or of grace in 6:18, the blessing in 6:16 is a “wish-prayer” or blessing, invoking God directly in meaning though grammatically only indirectly.

Paul’s rivals probably would have found the benediction’s language familiar. The prototypical blessing for Israel was “May the LORD bless you and protect you . . . and give you peace” (Num. 6:24–26); the common Greek rendering includes “and show you mercy” (καὶ ἐλεήσαι σε [kai eleēsai se]; LXX Num. 6:25). It is thus not surprising that blessings often included “Peace be on [so-and-so],” including in tomb inscriptions. Often they included “Peace be on Israel” (see, e.g., closing benedictions in Pss. 29:11; 125:5; 128:6). An inscription dedicated to a synagogue ruler in Antioch reads, “May peace and mercy be on all who . . .” Where context dictates, “peace” can also be an eschatological blessing.

Jewish prayers for mercy were also common, including on “all those who love you,” on Israel (e.g., “May the mercy of the Lord be upon Israel forevermore”), or on others. Scholars often compare the nineteenth benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh, which was probably often recited this early (and was apparently known by the mid-second century, even in some places in the Diaspora, to be recited thrice daily). That prayer is for peace “on us” and on “all Israel”; Paul prays for all who will follow in the steps of this just-mentioned standard and God’s Israel.

On whom does Paul intend this blessing? Given the curse in 1:8–9 against those who distort the good news, Paul clearly does not see his adversaries as following the rule in 6:15. But by itself this does not rule out the possibility of a blessing for the Jewish remnant or more generically for his Jewish people (cf. Rom. 9:3; 10:1). Grammatically, one can read this as either one blessing, “Peace be upon them, and mercy, even upon God’s Israel,” or perhaps more simply two blessings, “Peace on those who follow this standard, and mercy also upon God’s Israel.” (The Greek word καί [kai] can mean “and,” “even,” or “also.”) The identity of those who will follow in the steps of this just-mentioned standard seems obvious enough, but who is God’s Israel?

One notoriously content-critical scholar concisely resolves this problem like Alexander cutting through the Gordian knot: he deletes the line. Lacking such a convenient recourse, other scholars debate the point here. In favor of some reference to Jews in particular is the simpler assumption syntactically of two blessings and the consequently possibly separate appeal for “mercy.” Favoring some sort of reference to Jesus’s followers is the progression of argument through Galatians.

Some categorize the sorts of options as something like the following. Various scholars argue that it designates:

Some suggest that Paul derived the unusual expression God’s Israel from his rivals, who used it to describe law-observant followers of Jesus, inviting the Galatians to join them. This hypothesis would help explain Paul’s variation here from his usual usage, but it remains just one possibility. In some respects, though, the phrase (especially with its θεοῦ, theou, “of God”) sounds quite Pauline. Paul elsewhere speaks of the “church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13) or “churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4). “Church” translates the Greek term ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), which in the Greek version of the OT often translates the term for the “community” or “assembly” of Israel.

The consistent thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians supports the inclusion of uncircumcised gentile believers here. Paul has made the following arguments:

Identifying uncircumcised but Spirit-endowed believers as members of God’s people would offer a fitting climax for the letter. Paul elsewhere identifies believers as spiritually circumcised (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11) and probably as spiritually Jewish (Rom. 2:29)—that is, as faithful to God’s covenant.

But Paul did not anticipate later anti-Jewish misappropriations of his work, counterreadings in which the (mostly gentile) church supposed that they had displaced Israel in God’s plan (against Paul’s counsel in Rom. 11:20). Justin Martyr, despite some respectful aspects of his dialogue with Trypho, argued that the church was the true, spiritual Israel. His successors continued this tradition. Indeed, later, “The Franks considered themselves to be the new Israel, and compared their kings to David and their bishops to Samuel.” Just as some modern readings incline many readers to value ethnic Israel, so did historic readings lead many readers to devalue ethnic Israel.

Paul’s entire theology is fuller than we would suppose if we had only Galatians. Paul was not prescribing, in this one polemical letter, a theological definition to be used in every setting; in 1 Cor. 10:32 he distinguishes the church from both Jews and Greeks (cf. also 1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Thess. 4:5). Paul normally uses “Israel” to indicate the Jewish people, but at least one instance qualifies this label: arguing that Abrahamic ethnic descent does not guarantee salvation, he warns that not all those descended from Israel are Israel (Rom. 9:6), and once he speaks of Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα (Israēl kata sarka), “Israel according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18 WEB; NASB note; ESV note; NET note). Calling anyone other than the Jewish people Israel is not, then, Paul’s usual language; it would, however, provide a fitting climax in this polemical letter.

Yet Paul is not adopting the later Christian supersessionist practice of a group claiming to replace ethnic Israel. Rather, he is thinking of believing gentile branches grafted into the single eschatological people of God (Rom. 11:17, 24); these are the eschatological converts promised by the prophets (e.g., Isa. 19:25; 56:3–8; Zech. 2:11). For Paul, it is true, unbelieving branches, whether Jewish (Rom. 11:17, 19) or gentile (11:21–22), are broken off. But Paul also affirmed that in the end time, Israel as a people would also convert to faith in the Messiah, convinced by the obedience of so many gentiles to their God (Rom. 11:25–26; cf. 11:11, 14). Far from discarding historic Israel, Paul is seeking to anchor his gentile converts clearly in connection with it. As William Neil pointed out more than half a century ago, “We are caught up, as Christians, in God’s plan for the salvation of the world within the framework of human history. It links us with Moses, Amos, and Isaiah.”

6:17

17Finally, don’t let anybody cause me further hardship, for I carry on my body the marks of Jesus.

In 6:17, various translations render τοῦ λοιποῦ (tou loipou) as “henceforth” (ASV) or, more often, “from now on” (NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NET, WEB). Although this rendering is feasible, the same phrase is rendered “finally” in Eph. 6:10, and the term λοιπός (loipos) may carry this sense in some other closing comments as well. The agitators who confused the Galatians (Gal. 1:7; 5:10) have made trouble for Paul; in light of the marks of Jesus on his body, Paul calls on them to stop making trouble for him. Paul might even be calling for them to stop making more work for him (κόπος [kopos] can mean “labor” or “toil” as well as “trouble”), but with the verb παρέχω (parechō) the idea is “make trouble,” “disturb,” or “bother.”

Paul, who identifies with Christ by the Spirit, has been crucified with Christ (2:20) and thus bears on his body the marks of Jesus. As noted below, he probably refers to his scars, but his particular way of describing them here may also allude to them by way of some known customs, since the term that he uses (στίγμα, stigma) ordinarily referred to tattoo marks. Greeks usually limited actual branding to horses, but Greeks and Romans tattooed some criminals and misbehaving slaves; religious tattoos predominated more in Egypt and Syria. Tattoo customs varied from one culture to another; Greeks regarded tattoos as shameful, but reportedly Ethiopians, some Egyptians, and Samaritans tattooed their children.

Some commentators suggest the image of slavery here; consistent with such an image, Paul is indeed Christ’s slave, not a pleaser of people (Gal. 1:10). This may not have been the first image to jump to hearers’ minds, however. Slave tattoos appear but were uncommon; thus one people’s practice of tattooing their slaves is noteworthy. The rare story of conquerors who branded prisoners of war the way they would horses, when selling the prisoners as slaves, emphasized the deep shame attached to such branding. “Do not brand your slave,” one moralist exhorts, “which would humiliate him.” More often than brands or even tattoos, a slave could bear wounds from beatings or on occasion leg irons. Moreover, Paul’s term, στίγματα (stigmata), is plural, whereas a brand or even tattoo would probably be singular (though Paul’s wounds would not be). Still, the image of slave tattoos was known and was even compatible with cultic tattoos in some locations.

Others suggest a religious tattoo as background. Such tattoos marked one as property of or under protection of the deity; this would explain why no one should cause Paul further trouble. Devotees of an eastern goddess were supposed to tattoo themselves. Israelites were forbidden to make tattoo marks, which recalled other peoples’ superstitions (Lev. 19:27–28; 21:5; Deut. 14:1–2; cf. 11Q19 48.9), but Scripture could also use the image of protective tattoos figuratively or spiritually (Gen. 4:15; Isa. 44:5; Ezek. 9:4). Though not really tattoos, the custom of tefillin was known from a very early period; in Greek they were called “phylacteries,” or “amulets,” and they were sometimes used as such.

An Egyptian Jewish story recounts the attempt of a pre-Christian ruler in Egypt to brand all the Jews there “by fire on their bodies with an ivy leaf, the emblem of Dionysius.” In the familiar, pre-Christian work Psalms of Solomon, God spiritually marks the righteous for preservation (as in Ezek. 9) and the wicked for destruction.

The Galatians had undoubtedly seen some of Paul’s scars. Given the limitations of ancient medical practice, much of the physical damage that he had suffered probably had long-term effects. Paul’s stoning (2 Cor. 11:25), reportedly in south Galatia (Acts 14:19), could easily have left scars, as would his floggings (2 Cor. 11:23–25). Scars could be used to identify a person.

Most scholars agree that Paul refers here to his physical scars that resulted from persecutions: beating with rods, beating with whips, stoning, and the like (2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23–25). Some of these incidents reportedly happened in Galatia itself (Acts 14:19; 2 Tim. 3:11), and it is possible that Paul refers to the effects of these injuries in Gal. 3:1; 4:13–14. Indeed, Gal. 6:17 probably includes all of Paul’s sufferings for Christ that affected him physically (on my body)—for example, travels, a night and day in the sea, heat and cold, hunger and thirst, anxiety about the state of the churches, as well as persecutions (1 Cor. 4:11–13; 2 Cor. 11:23–29). But commentators are right to stress especially persecution because persecution fits him being crucified with Christ (Gal. 6:14)—and contrasts him with his more timid rivals (6:12; cf. 2 Cor. 11:23). Here Paul “carries” the marks on his body, using the same term (βαστάζω, bastazō) used earlier to speak of bearing one another’s burdens and each one carrying his or her own load (Gal. 6:2, 5). That they are on Paul’s body also shows that God’s calling rather than fleshly desires dominates his activity (cf. 5:16–25).

Paul’s scars are the marks of Jesus. No mere mark of circumcision (6:12–13), these are marks of genuine and voluntary suffering for the Lord (6:14). Paul here identifies with Christ’s cross not only by preaching it (6:14) but also by embracing the persecution that such preaching entails (6:12; cf. 5:11), at least in an empire committed to keeping its executions permanent. Although using a different Greek word for carry, Paul elsewhere speaks of carrying in his body the death of Jesus (2 Cor. 4:10) by his apostolic sufferings for the gospel. The Galatians saw in Paul Christ crucified (Gal. 3:1), for Paul died with Christ (2:19–20), Christ lived in Paul (2:20), and Paul’s wounds were proof that he shared his Lord’s sufferings (cf. 2 Cor. 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24). One church father waxed eloquent with homiletic detail on Paul’s behalf: “All that Christ experienced on the cross—the imprint of the nails, the spear thrust in his side, the other marks of the crucifixion—I bear in my own body.”

Since pathos, or emotion, was valuable at the end of a speech, the preacher Paul may appeal to it also in his closing image: the image of wounds could be used to stir emotion. Some showed wounds to arouse judges or juries against the accused. Others revealed wounds to invite sympathy, also a valuable emotion in persuasion. Wounds incurred nobly could, as here, be treated as signs of valor. They also could demonstrate loyalty to one’s leader, nation, or the like. Thus the mother of a Spartan lamed in battle is said to have encouraged him: “For at every step you will be reminded of your own valour.” Alexander’s companion Cleitus noted his wounds in order to testify of his costly loyalty to Alexander. Antipater displayed his wounds and said that no other proof of his loyalty to Caesar was needed. Sages also used their sufferings to demonstrate their sincere commitments to their beliefs.

6:18

18May the abundant generosity of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers and sisters! Amen.

Paul closes with a blessing of grace in 6:18, as he often does. That he is addressing a group rather than an individual does not require Paul to change with your spirit to “with your spirits”; the form of the Greek term translated as your here (ὑμῶν, humōn) is already plural, and Paul employs a distributive singular since each of them had a spirit. By itself, the brevity of his benediction does not suggest annoyance; it is comparable with 1 Thess. 5:28 and 2 Thess. 3:18 and especially Phil. 4:23 and Philem. 25. Some suggest that Paul focuses on their spirit in contrast with the flesh of circumcision, but Paul uses a benediction with your spirit also in Phil. 4:23 and Philem. 25 (cf. the singular in 2 Tim. 4:22). Abundant generosity (“grace”) is surely appropriate in concluding Galatians, but it is also standard in all Pauline letter closings.

After all this, Paul’s final word is ἀδελφοί (adelphoi), brothers and sisters. Despite the rebukes, Paul’s affection for the Galatians, reaffirmed throughout this letter by this Greek title (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1), sounds the letter’s concluding note. As J. Bengel pointed out, this conclusion softens the overall tone of the letter.

Jewish books sometimes closed with “Amen.” Some NT letters closed this way, but especially when they were closing with blessings (Rom. 16:27; Jude 25; variant in Rev. 22:21); “Amen” was, of course, a good way to close a blessing (Rom. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 15:33; Gal. 1:5), as here (Gal. 6:18).

. This is true in a general sense, whether this is, with Weima (“Gal. 6:11–18”) and most commentators, the letter closing or, with Hubing (Crucifixion [e.g., 3, 43–84]), the closing of the letter body.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 288; on the sudden closing in 2 Corinthians, see Witherington, Corinthians, 474.

. Here, cf. Mussner, Galaterbrief, 410; Ryken, Galatians, 269.

. On this point, see Quintilian, Decl. 338.3; Eriksson, “Fear,” 117; Lincoln, Ephesians, 432; Wuellner, “Rhetoric,” 340–41; note some examples in Quintilian, Decl. 267.12–13; 270.25–29; 291.7–8; 298.16; 315.24–25; 322.31; 328.7; 331.14; 339.29–32.

. Betz, Galatians, 313; Witherington, Grace, 443–44; for the third element here, see deSilva, Readings, 295, following Aristotle, Rhet. 3.19.1.

. Engberg-Pedersen, “Vices,” 616; Fee, “Freedom”; also some Reformers, including Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:18 (Bray).

. Richards, Letter Writing, 172. Witherington (Grace, 440) offers P.Oxy. 264 as an example but rightly notes that summaries in letter closings were rare.

. See esp. Weima, “Gal. 6:11–18”; also Das, Galatians, 631. Although not conspicuous here, extended antithetical parallelism is useful for stirring passion; cf., e.g., Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:42–49; 2 Cor. 6:8–10, 14–16; Cicero, Phil. 8.5.16; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 3.4; 36.2.

. Many Greek and Latin fathers (noted by Matera, Galatians, 229); Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:11; Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:11 (Bray); Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:11; KJV; deSilva, Readings, 3, 296.

. See also Lightfoot, Galatians, 221; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 410; de Boer, Galatians, 395; Moo, Galatians, 391; Hubing, Crucifixion, 77, 198; Das, Galatians, 632, citing Phil. 2:28; Col. 4:8; Philem. 12; 1 John 2:14, 21, 26; 5:13; 3 John 9. Otherwise Paul could still speak of the letters that he had started writing with his hand.

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.11 (Edwards); Lightfoot, Galatians, 221; Mussner, Galaterbrief, 410; Longenecker, Galatians, 289; Matera, Galatians, 229; Buscemi, Lettera, 612; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 321–22; Hubing, Crucifixion, 199.

. With Haimo of Auxerre on Gal. 6:11 (Levy); Hansen, Abraham, 52; Dunn, Galatians, 335; Ngewa, Galatians, 167. Bahr (“Subscriptions,” 35) argues that Paul started writing in 5:2, but epistolary subscriptions were generally much briefer (including proportionately) than that would suggest (Schreiner, Galatians, 376n7).

. With Aune, Rhetoric, 433; Keck, Paul, 20; Dunn, Galatians, 334.

. E.g., Aune, Environment, 187; Aune, Rhetoric, 270, citing Cicero, Att. 12.32; 13.28; 14.21; see also 8.1. Even to make a backup copy of what one wrote (Fronto, M. Caes. 5.26).

. Deissmann, Light, 154–55; Aune, Environment, 187; Aune, Rhetoric, 70, 270; Longenecker, Galatians, lix; Witherington, Grace, 439–40, citing also P.Oxy. 265, 499, 513; P.Lond. 897, 1173; Bahr, “Subscriptions”; Fitzmyer, “Epistolography”; Longenecker, “Amanuenses.”

. Keith, “Grapho-Literacy”; McDonnell, “Writing.”

. Fake autographs may have also been fairly rare; see again McDonnell, “Writing.” For charges or suspicions of forged letters, though, see Livy, Hist. 40.55.1; Quintilian, Inst. 5.5.1; Josephus, Life 356; Arrian, Anab. 6.12.3; Chariton, Chaer. 4.6.1–2.

. Richards, Letter Writing, 171. Highest was sealing, even if the letter were unsigned; see Cicero, Cat. 3.5.10, 12.

. Cicero, Fam. 10.21.3; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.16.2; y. Ketub. 2:3, §2; 2 Thess. 3:17.

. Cf. Longenecker, Galatians, cxix. At least a more extreme rhetorical offering of hands would stir pathos (Seneca E., Controv. 1.7.10).

. Cicero, Att. 5.19; Plutarch, M. Cato 20.5 (to one’s son); Fronto, M. Caes. 3.3, end; Chariton, Chaer. 8.4.6.

. Seneca Y., Lucil. 83.15. In Plutarch, Cic. 37.3, Cicero was offended that Caesar had not authored the letter to him himself.

. See, e.g., summaries in Ridderbos, Epistle, 222; Moo, Galatians, 392.

. Literacy was one limitation; see Harris, Literacy; Botha, “Literacy”; somewhat higher literacy estimates in Beard, Literacy; Curchin, “Literacy”; Smith, “Consequences”; Millard, “Literacy”; Head, “Note on Reading”; Porter, “Know,” 45–46. Most metropolites were somewhat literate (Lewis, Life, 61–62), suggesting higher literacy for urban areas.

. Richards (Letter Writing, 169) estimates that, given the cost of papyrus and copying, the cost of a letter the length of Galatians in early twenty-first-century American currency would be about $722.

. With Hansen, Galatians, 197; Fee, Galatians, 248.

. Witherington, Grace, 441; Fee, Galatians, 248 (very tentatively). Contrast, e.g., Oakes, Galatians, 186.

. As in Cicero, Att. 8.13. Most rooms admitted little light (Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 169), but there were ways to compensate for this.

. See Lightfoot, Galatians, 191–92n1.

. See Zahn, Galater, 278, cited in Dunn, Galatians, 335.

. Toner, Culture, 134.

. Murphy-O’Connor, Corinth, 169. Deissmann (Paul, 35) thinks Paul’s experiences of “cold” (2 Cor. 11:27) especially relevant in the interior of Asia Minor.

. Fronto, M. Caes. 5.59. Others, however, valued endurance of cold for strengthening the body or courage; see, e.g., Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.1; Anab. 3.1.23; Sallust, Jug. 85.33; Cicero, Fam. 8.17.2; Musonius Rufus, Lect. 6, p. 54.12; 18B, p. 120.4; 19, p. 122.1; 20, p. 126.9–10; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 3.136; 6.8, 27; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 36.5.

. Suetonius, Hor. ¶2; Fronto, Ver. imp. 2.6; Nep. am. 1. It could also cause shaky handwriting; Fronto, M. Caes. 4.8. Some are praised for courage for writing with their own blood (Seneca E., Suas. 2.16; Silius Italicus, Pun. 9.174).

. Fronto, M. Caes. 5.58 (73).

. Fronto, Amic. 2.1, 3; Bell. parth. 10; Eloq. 2. This might be arthritis exacerbated by cold weather.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 221; Betz, Galatians, 314; Fung, Galatians, 301.

. Plato, Prot. 326D; Seneca Y., Lucil. 94.51; Plutarch, M. Cato 20.5; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 2.2. Some find in this practice the background for 1 Cor. 4:6; see Fitzgerald, Cracks, 124; Tyler, “Pedagogy.” Ramsay (Galatians, 309) understands Deissmann as saying that children were more impressed by big letters. In papyri, one who “writes slowly” is normally one who could barely inscribe his signature, normally “in clumsily traced imitations of Greek letters” (Lewis, Life, 82). Regular old Latin cursive looked like chicken tracks (Clark, “Handwriting,” citing Plautus, Pseud. 11.29–30).

. Hubing, Crucifixion, 204–5, noting the practice in Cribiore, Writing, 99–100.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 221; Ramsay, Galatians, 466 (citing esp. inscriptions); Loisy, L’Épitre aux Galates, 196; Burton, Galatians, 348; Neil, Galatians, 87; Betz, Galatians, 314; Bruce, Galatians, 268; Fung, Galatians, 301; Longenecker, Galatians, 290; Matera, Galatians, 229; Dunn, Galatians, 335; Hays, “Galatians,” 342; Buscemi, Lettera, 613; Schreiner, Galatians, 376; Lyons, Galatians, 387; Oakes, Galatians, 186.

. Witherington, Grace, 441 (though he nevertheless allows this possibility); Moo, Galatians, 392. If correctly interpreted, large letters may be used for emphasis in a papyrus and some inscriptions (Hubing [Crucifixion, 204] observes that the sources are limited).

. Deissmann, Studies, 348–49; Sanders, Paul, 4–5; cf. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 131.

. Chrysostom, Hom. Gal. 6.11 (Edwards).

. Richards, Letter Writing, 28–29. See further Cicero, Fam. 16.14.1–2; 16.22.1; though Cicero did write letters by hand to his brother (Quint. fratr. 2.15b.1).

. Richards, Letter Writing, 166.

. E.g., Cicero, Fam. 10.21.3; Ovid, Trist. 3.3.1–2; Pliny Y., Ep. 2.16.2.

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.11 (Edwards).

. With de Boer, Galatians, 396; Butticaz, “Culture,” 124. Only the A and probably B levels clearly suggest inverted parallelism (thus the shorter chiasm in Oakes, Galatians, 186); the lines marked C and C′ are probably simply between them.

. Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 22.61–62, noting standard procedure. Contrary to some modern expectations, even ancient biographers and historians reconstructed motives; see Hägg, Biography, 3; Licona, Differences, 52, 83, 99, 109; De Pourcq and Roskam, “Virtues,” 169; Smith and Kostopoulos, “Biography,” 402–3 (citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pomp. 6); Pelling, Texts and Historian, 77–81, esp. 77.

. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Isaeus 3, 9; Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 2.6; Scaur. 13.29; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.3; Apuleius, Apol. 1, 25; Hermogenes, Inv. 1.1.99; 1.2.102–3. For the importance of ēthos, or character, in making a case, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.50.63. For inferring motives in various genres, see, e.g., on envy, Keener, Acts, 2:1206–7; for even a single author focusing on different motives in different works, see Licona, Differences, 52, 83, 99, 109.

. BDAG. Das (Galatians, 534) also underlines how the rivals’ concern for guarding their “face” involves shaming the Galatians’ most private part.

. Cf. Let. Aris. 229; Gilbert, “Relation”; Lodge, Ethics, 61; Warry, Aesthetic Theory; Partee, Poetics. On physical beauty in Greek thought, see comment on Gal. 4:14.

. Dunn, Galatians, 336.

. 1 Macc. 1:14–15; Josephus, Ant. 12.241.

. Deissmann, Light, 98–99; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 264; Hubing, Crucifixion, 208–9, on P.Tebt. 19.

. With Das, Galatians, 634. For the centrality of honor, see, e.g., Brandes, “Reflections,” 121–23; Malina and Pilch, Letters, 368–71; Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 176–82; deSilva, “Wisdom”; Jewett, “Shame”; in earlier Greece, Adkins, Merit; Williams, Shame; in earlier Rome, Barton, “Moment.”

. As Paul perhaps once preached circumcision (Gal. 5:11), so he also once compelled repudiation of Christ (Acts 26:11); but aside from 2 Cor. 12:11, all Paul’s extant epistolary uses of this verb (ἀναγκάζω [anankazō]) appear in Galatians. Thus Gal. 6:12 especially echoes 2:3, 14.

. Josephus, Ant. 13.318.

. Josephus, Life 113. Maccabean literature applies this verb translated “compel” especially to gentiles forcing Jews to practice pagan customs (1 Macc. 2:25; 2 Macc. 6:1, 7, 18; 7:1; 4 Macc. 4:26; 5:2; 8:2, 9; 18:5). In general, Greek thought abhorred compulsion (cf., e.g., Musonius Rufus, Lect. 16, p. 106.8; Arius Didymus, Epit. 2.7.11g, p. 72.17–18).

. De Boer, Galatians, 398; Eastman, “Galatians,” 831.

. Kelhoffer, “Suffering.”

. Winter, Welfare, 123–44; Hardin, Imperial Cult, 85–115; Gill, “Early Christianity,” 82; cf. Mitternacht, “Korsfäst.”

. E.g., Fee, Galatians, 250; Gill, “Early Christianity,” 82. This was the former consensus; see Smallwood, Jews, 539; Reinhold, Diaspora, 74.

. Rajak, “Charter”; Maddox, Purpose, 91–93; Esler, Community, 211–14; Das, Debate, 185–90; Das, Stories, 189–95. The phrase first appears in Tertullian (Apol. 21.1). Still, respect for Judaism as an ancestral religion protected it (Esler, Community, 214–17; Keener, Acts, 1:450).

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.12 (Edwards).

. Dunn, Galatians, 336; Barclay, Churches, 354; Das, Stories, 179–215, esp. 197–200, 210–15 (though I do demur from some conclusions on 195–97, 205–6).

. Barclay, Gift, 336n18; Oakes, Galatians, 187.

. Witherington, Grace, 447–48; Das, Galatians, 635–37.

. For the tensions that this could cause, see Sanders, Paul, 494, 564.

. Cf. Hubing, Crucifixion, 227–28.

. Jewett, “Agitators,” esp. here 206; Longenecker, Galatians, 194, 291.

. With, e.g., Schreiner, Galatians, 377. Cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 20.200. George (Identity, 154–55) suggests opposition both from Judean nationalists and imperial authorities; certainly cultural pressure existed on both fronts.

. For travelers carrying news, see, e.g., Euripides, Elec. 361–62; Demosthenes, Ep. 5.1; Cicero, Att. 2.11; Seneca Y., Lucil. 47.1; P.Oxy. 32; Apuleius, Metam. 1.26; Philo, Embassy 18; also carrying letters, Cicero, Att. 1.10, 13; 4.1; 8.14. For early Christianity, see discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:187–88.

. Cf. some discussions advocating use of “Judeans” in, e.g., Cromhout and van Aarde, “Judean Ethnicity”; Elliott, “Israelite”; Malina and Pilch, Acts, 2–3; cf. Malina and Pilch, Letters, 29; Elliott, Arrogance, 16; particularly helpfully, Mason, “Jews”; but keeping in mind the important concerns in Levine, Misunderstood Jew, 160–65.

. With, e.g., Augustine, Ep. Gal. 62 (1B.6.11–14) (Edwards); Luther, First Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 1:10; 6:12; Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:12 (Bray); Dunn, Galatians, 336–37; Moo, Galatians, 393; Sanders, Paul, 564.

. Oakes, Galatians, 188.

. Adapted from Keener, Acts, 1:939–41.

. On ancient crucifixion generally, see, e.g., Hengel, Crucifixion; Samuelsson, Crucifixion; briefly, e.g., Green, “Crucifixion”; most extensively, Cook, Crucifixion.

. For its use in Judea, see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 19.94; 20.102; J.W. 2.75, 253; this often degenerated into blatant abuse (e.g., Josephus, J.W. 2.306, 308).

. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11. I have borrowed much of the material from Keener, Matthew, 678–79; Keener, John, 1135–36, but have woven in additional information omitted in those briefer works.

. Bruce, “Matthew,” 328.

. Theon, Progymn. 5.52–56.

. Hengel, Crucifixion, 25. For different shapes of crosses and the likeliest for Jesus (a four-armed cross), see Brown, Death, 948; Blinzler, Trial, 248–49. Positions varied, but for evidence for one possibly common position, see Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52–53. For the torture involved, see also Scott, Customs, 364–65; Brown, Death, 946–47. A cross thus became a metaphor for suffering (Seneca Y., Dial. 1.3.10; Apuleius, Metam. 7.16; 8.22; 9.31; 10.9; 11.23); it apparently symbolizes suffering for one’s sins in Seneca Y., Dial. 7.19.3.

. Apuleius, Metam. 8.22; cf. Prometheus’s fetters (Martial, Epigr. 7; Lucian Z. Cat. 8; also Lucian, Prom., e.g., 1–2, 4, 9, 17).

. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 12.256, where it was used against Jews resisting hellenization.

. Esther 9:25; de Vaux, Israel, 159. Alexander used hanging in Persia (Arrian, Anab. 6.30.2).

. E.g., Josephus, J.W. 1.97; Ant. 13.380; 4QpNah 1.7–8; 11QT 64.7–12; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; y. Sanh. 6:6, §2; perhaps Exod. Rab. 20:10.

. L.A.B. 55:3.

. Cf. Gen. 40:19; m. Sanh. 6:4.

. Deut. 21:23; m. Sanh. 6:4.

. Ironically, Livy (Hist. 1.28.11) claims that Romans were the most humane of peoples with the mildest of punishments!

. See Artemidorus, Onir. 2.56; Plautus, Most. 2.1.12–13; m. Šabb. 6.10; Lane, Mark, 564; cf. Luke 24:39; for ropes alone, cf., e.g., Xenophon of Ephesus, Eph. Tale 4.2. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 25.5.2 (if the verb here means “nailed,” as it often does). Perhaps also the skeleton recovered at Givat ha-Mivtar (Bruce, “Trial,” 18), though original reports about the ankle nail(s) have been revised (Stanton, Gospels, 148; Kuhn, “Gekreuzigten”); on the wrists, see Yamauchi, “Crucifixion,” 2; Tzaferis, “Crucifixion,” 52; but this is still debated (McRay, Archaeology, 204–5). Since our sample size for crucifixion skeletons is one out of thousands crucified, we dare not infer too much from it.

. Whitacre, John, 457.

. Blinzler, Trial, 249; Reicke, Era, 186.

. Like others, a slave might be left to hang to be eaten by animals (Llewelyn, Documents 8, 1–3, §1).

. Suetonius, Galb. 9.1.

. Especially given the branch used to reach Jesus’s mouth (John 19:29; cf. Mark 15:36). See further Blinzler, Trial, 249; Brown (Death, 948–49) guesses seven feet.

. Cf. Blinzler, Trial, 213–14; Overman, Crisis, 387; Brown, Death, 968. This is its usual function in Josephus, hence probably in Judea (Harvey, History, 13); e.g., Josephus, J.W. 2.241, 253.

. With, e.g., Harvey, History, 13–14; Stanton, Gospel Truth?, 173. Certainly it remained for centuries an apologetic problem vis-à-vis the empire’s elite (Cook, Interpretation, 50–53, 107–8; cf. Lucian, Peregr. 11).

. On the shame of crucifixion, see, e.g., Polybius, Hist. 1.86.6; 8.21.3; Pliny E., Nat. 36.24.107–8; Deut. 21:23; cf. probably Horace, Sat. 2.7.46–47; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.26.22.

. E.g., Polybius, Hist. 1.86.4; 8.21.3 (though posthumous, after various other disgraces); Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 2.1.10; 25.5.2; cf. Caesar’s crucifixion of his former pirate captors (Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.42.3; Plutarch, Caes. 2.4; Suetonius, Jul. 4, 74.1). Carthaginians also allegedly crucified their generals who mismanaged campaigns (Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.7.ext. 1).

. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 17.46.4; Quintus Curtius, Alex. 4.4.17.

. Terence, Andr. 622–24; Cicero, Verr. 2.5.66.169; cf. Livy, Hist. 22.33.1–2; Chariton, Chaer. 4.2.7; Apuleius, Metam. 10.12. Slaves could be crucified by cruel masters (Seneca E., Controv. 3.9 excerpts; Martial, Epigr. 2.82; Juvenal, Sat. 6.219–24; Quintilian, Decl. 380 intro.), and they were automatically liable to crucifixion if they killed their masters (Seneca Y., Clem. 1.26.1; cf. Xenophon of Ephesus, Eph. Tale 4.2; Herodian, Hist. 5.2.2).

. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.7.12 (trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, LCL, 1:191). On the event, LCL 190n13 refers here also to Livy, Hist. 30.43.13.

. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 34/35.12.1; Cicero, Verr. 2.5.66.169; Seneca Y., Lucil. 101.10–12; Lucian, Fisherman 2; Apuleius, Metam. 3.9; 6.32; Chariton, Chaer. 3.3.12.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 323. Du Toit (“Galatians 6:13”) suggests instead that Paul rhetorically casts them as valuing boasting in the Galatians’ circumcision more than obeying the Torah.

. With Witherington, Grace, 49.

. Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 325.

. With Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 6.13 (Edwards). Cf., e.g., Deut. 12:14; 14:23; 16:2, 6–7, 11, 15–16; 26:2; some accommodations appear for the Diaspora in 12:21; 14:24, but even here travel may be required (14:25).

. Jews differed among themselves on what it meant to be Torah observant; see Zetterholm, “Assumptions,” 80–81.

. Perhaps also Gal. 2:19; 3:24, depending on their interpretation.

. For this select commandment, but with a different expectation of those who had the law, see 4 Macc. 2:5–6.

. On the close connection between circumcision and flesh, Barclay (Obeying, 180) cites Gen. 17:9–14, 23–25; Lev. 12:3; Ezek. 44:7, 9; LXX Gen. 34:24; Jer. 9:25 (ET 9:26); Sir. 44:20; Jdt. 14:10; Jub. 15:13–33; 4 Ezra 1:31. Cf. David’s haul of Philistine foreskins in 1 Sam. 18:25–27; 2 Sam. 3:14.

. Oakes, Galatians, 189.

. E.g., LXX Wis. 9:9; 11:17; Marcus Aurelius, Medit. 4.2; Epictetus, Frag. 3 (trans. W. A. Oldfather, LCL, 2:442–43; but cf. Frag. 4); Rom. 1:20.

. E.g., 2 Macc. 3:12; Wis. 6:24; Rom. 1:8; 11:12, 15; Col. 1:6.

. Cf. Jub. 4:23; 1 En. 48:7; 69:27; James 1:27; 4:4; probably 2 Pet. 2:20; abundant examples in the Johannine corpus (cf. brief comment in Keener, John, 1:329–30). Paul might think here of humanity under the stoicheia (Gal. 4:3; though stoicheia tou kosmou in this verse apparently bears a technical meaning as an entire phrase). Cf. the transitory character of this present human world in 1 Cor. 1:27–28; 7:31, 34; Eph. 2:2.

. E.g., Tatian, Or. Graec. 11.

. Dunn, Galatians, 341; cf. Ladd, Theology, 485. In the indicative, Paul normally uses the aorist or perfect for death with Christ. The one imperative (Col. 3:5) is directly predicated on accomplished death with Christ in Col. 3:3–4 (cf. Rom. 6:11).

. Cf. Wright, Faithfulness, 407; Malan, “Metafoor.”

. With, e.g., Martyn, Galatians, 564–65 (noting the grammatical connection between 6:14 and 6:15); de Boer, Galatians, 401; Wright, Faithfulness, 478. Boasting (6:13–14) belongs to the present world (Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 63); so does self-seeking, which Stoicism also sought to transcend (Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and Stoics, 55).

. Cf. Gal. 5:5; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 2:6–16, esp. 8–10; 2 Cor. 5:11–17, esp. 16–17; Keener, Mind, 153–55, 176–79.

. Technically correctly, detractors to the apocalyptic reading of Galatians note that Paul says that the world has died to me, not altogether (Oakes, Galatians, 190); but the coming of the new creation has already determined believers’ status in the midst of this age (2 Cor. 5:17).

. Dunn, Galatians, 342.

. Longenecker, Galatians, 295–96; Ramsaran, “Paul and Maxims,” 437, 439; cf. Betz, Galatians, 319n79.

. Cf. the caution of Dunn, Galatians, 342.

. Lightfoot (Galatians, 224) suggested that if it did appear in the Apocalypse of Moses, it was probably a Christian interpolation. It certainly does not reflect a common early Jewish sentiment.

. With Sanders, Paul, 496, 551–52.

. With Wright, Faithfulness, 1145.

. Jub. 1:29; 4:26; 1 En. 72:1; 91:16–17; cf. also the time of when God will make new (1QS 4.25); concurring with Ringgren, Faith, 165.

. Jub. 1:20–21; 4Q393 f1.ii.2.5–6, drawing on Ps. 51:10 and Ezek. 36:26. One who turned from sins would live and get “a new heart and a new spirit” (Ezek. 18:30–31).

. Lev. Rab. 29:12; Moore, Judaism, 1:533.

. y. Bik. 3:3, §7.

. Said of Abraham and Sarah in Sipre Deut. 32.2.1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 12A; 26, §54B; Song Rab. 1:2, §3; see other citations in Davies, Paul, 119. Amoraim also applied the principle to teaching young men (b. Sanh. 99b).

. b. Šabb. 145b–46a; Song Rab. 8:2, §1; Borgen, “Traditions,” 254–58.

. See fuller discussion on this point in Keener, John, 1:542–44.

. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 324, citing b. Yebam. 22a; 48b, bar. (a proselyte as a newborn child, but unlearned in religious duties); 62a (again); 97b; Ger. 2:6; others cite Gen. Rab. 39:14; see also b. Bek. 47a. Cf. also Chilton, “Galatians 6:15”; Charles, Jubilees, lxxxiv, on Jub. 5:12.

. Lightfoot, Galatians, 224; Burton, Galatians, 355; Hunter, Gospel, 24n1; Witherington, Grace, 451; tentatively, Hubing, Crucifixion, 241–44. See esp. Hubbard, New Creation, 11–25, for new creation in the OT; 26–53 in Jubilees; 54–76 in Joseph and Aseneth (conceding on 73–74 that the phrase is not found there, though the idea is associated with conversion). For various strands in Joseph and Aseneth, see Charles, “Lecture.”

. See, e.g., Stephens, Annihilation, 46–116 (for OT, see 22–45).

. With, e.g., Bornkamm, Experience, 22; Hays, Echoes, 223n15; Barclay, Obeying, 99; Barclay, Gift, 395; Dunn, Galatians, 343; Dunn, Theology of Paul, 180; Martyn, “Gospel”; Moo, “Creation”; Moo, Galatians, 397–98; tentatively, Tannehill, Dying and Rising, 65; particularly extensively, see Jackson, New Creation.

. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ep. Gal. 6.15 (Edwards).

. With Dunn, Galatians, 343.

. For some works repeating toward the end themes introduced toward the beginning, see, e.g., John 1:1, 18; 20:28–31; Rom. 1:5; 16:25; examples in Harvey, Listening, 66–67, 104–6, 111–12, with Homer, Il. 1; 24; Brown, Historians, 92 (on Xenophon, Hellenica); on Romans, cf. Kennedy, Interpretation, 154; Lo, Purpose, 159; Talbert, Romans, 327; Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 29, on Rom. 15:22.

. The καί (kai) here may well be epexegetic, hence, “on all who follow . . . that is [or, yes], on God’s Israel.” I have chosen to reserve that discussion for the commentary rather than impose the conclusion on the translation.

. With Barclay, Obeying, 99. On 6:16, Betz (Galatians, 321) contends that “the whole argument in the letter leads up to the rule in v. 15.”

. For stoicheō here referring back to 5:25, see also Martyn, Galatians, 566. Cf. also 2:14 in Barclay, Gift, 367n44.

. For the contrast, cf., e.g., Ashworth, “Spirit-Led Freedom”; Gombis, “Arguing,” 89; Oakes, Galatians, 191; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 338.

. Elsewhere in early Christianity, the rule of Christian tradition (1 Clem. 7.2; cf. 1.3) and “the designated rule of his ministry” (1 Clem. 41.1; perhaps similar to 2 Cor. 10:13–16).

. On the appropriateness of their use together see also Lightfoot, Galatians, 225.

. Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.174.

. Josephus, Ant. 10.49, using both skopos (σκοπός) and kanōn; cf. Phil. 3:14–17.

. E.g., Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.233: “the rule of truth.” In 4 Macc. 7:21, the writer speaks of living by the entire rule (kanōn) of philosophy.

. Moses as a model would be “a standard [kanōn] and rule [νόμος, nomos] for all” future leaders (Philo, Virtues 70).

. Philo, Confusion 2 (answering an objector). Cf. Spec. Laws 3.137: “The divine law is the rule of justice.”

. E.g., Pss. 41:13 (closing book 1 of Psalms); 72:18–19 (closing book 2); 89:52 (closing book 3); 106:48 (closing book 4); 3 Macc. 7:23; 4 Macc. 18:24; cf. Wis. 19:22; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.8.

. Wiles, Prayers, 129; Betz, Galatians, 321. Hubing (Crucifixion, 43–84) views 6:18 as the actual close after the letter body.

. 1QSb 3.5.

. See, e.g., Carmon, Inscriptions, 79, §174; 176–77, §174; CIJ 1:273, §349; other “peace” or “rest” funerary inscriptions in, e.g., CIJ 1:198–99, §283; 1:230, §292; 1:250–51, §319; 1:362, §497; 1:364, §499; 1:412, §558; 1:422–23, §570; 1:423, §572, §573; 1:427, §584; 1:432, §594; 1:432, §595; 1:433, §§596–97; 1:436, §§606–7; 1:437, §609; 1:438, §611; 1:440, §613; 1:446, §626; 1:449, §630; 1:464, §649; 1:466, §650; 1:473, §659; 1:474, §661; 1:483, §671; 1:499, §688; 1:597, §732; 2:108, §874; 2:110, §877; 2:120, §892; 2:121, §893; 2:122, §897; 2:125, §903; 2:129, §914; 2:132, §920; 2:133, §922; 2:138, §§933, 934; 2:139, §937; 2:142, §943; 2:144, §948; 2:145, §951; 2:147, §956; 2:148, §959; 2:149, §961; 2:156, §970; 2:159, §973; 2:197, §§1078–80; 2:198, §1086; 2:199, §1090; 2:232, §1195; 2:236, §1200; 2:364, §1437; 2:364–65, §1438; Leon, Jews of Rome, 123; cf. Sir. 30:17; Wis. 3:3; 4:7; Syr. Men. 470–73; Rev. 14:13.

. CIJ 1:231, §293; 1:307, §397; 1:434, §599; 1:466, §650; 1:474, §661; 1:481, §670; 2:103, §866; 2:115, §884; 2:159, §973; 2:160, §974 (reconstructed); 2:222, §1175. CIJ 2:104, §867 (in Greek), includes “Peace to the synagogue.” See also 4Q503 f29–32.11. Cf. prayer for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps. 122:6–8).

. CIJ 2:56, §804.

. E.g., Jub. 23:29–30; 31:20; 1QM 1.9; 12.3; Tob. 13:14–15 MSS; Sib. Or. 2.29; 3.751, 753, 755, 780–85; T. Jud. 22:2. The wicked will not have peace (1 En. 98:11, 15; 99:13; 101:3; 103:8), but the righteous will (1 En. 71:17; 105:2; cf. m. ʾAbot 2:7).

. E.g., Pss. Sol. 4:25 (trans. R. B. Wright, OTP 2:656).

. Pss. Sol. 11:9 (trans. Wright, OTP 2:662); see further Jub. 1:20; Sir. 36:17; Bar. 3:2; 3 Macc. 6:12; Pss. Sol. 8:27–28; 9:8; 18:5. Dunn (Galatians, 344) notes also parallels from Psalms of Solomon. Given the early date of these psalms and their likely acceptability in Pharisaic circles, Paul may have known of these prayers and surely knew of prayers like them. Sanders (Judaism, 453–55) considers them non-Pharisaic; Rost, Judaism, 119, more Pharisaic.

. E.g., Pss. 25:6; 40:11; 51:1; 69:16; 119:77, 156; 123:3; 4 Ezra 8:45; 2 Tim. 1:16. One could also pray the converse: May God not have mercy on someone in 1QS 2.8 (cf. 4Q256 3.1–2) or give them peace (2.9; 4Q256 3.3; 4Q257 2.6).

. Hurtado, “Collection,” 56; Betz, Galatians, 321; Barclay, Obeying, 98; Wright, Faithfulness, 1149.

. Cf., e.g., m. Tamid 5:1; the themes appear in many pre-Christian documents (Oesterley, Liturgy, 54–67; Levine, “Synagogue,” 19; cf. Arbel, “Liturgy: Rabbinic,” 650–51). The liturgy may not have been standardized yet, however; see Levine, “Synagogue,” 19–20; Cohen, “Evidence on Synagogue,” 175. Supporting some common Jewish liturgy, cf. Schiffman, “Scrolls”; Maier, “Kult.”

. See Schiffman, “Crossroads,” 151; Horbury, “Benediction,” 19; Barnard, “Old Testament,” 400; Barnard, Justin, 44–45; Shotwell, Exegesis, 83–84. See discussion in Keener, John, 1:209–10; on the use of rabbinic texts, 185–94; or, much more fully, Instone-Brewer, Traditions.

. Ridderbos, Epistle, 227; Betz, Galatians, 322.

. Favoring the latter, see, e.g., de Boer, Galatians, 406; Das, Galatians, 648, noting, “An uncontested instance of an epexegetical καί (‘namely’) is not available elsewhere in the undisputed Pauline corpus.” The key word here, however, is “uncontested,” since possible (though debatable) cases arise quite quickly on reading Paul’s letters (e.g., Rom. 1:5; 10:1, 21; 11:33; 15:19; 16:25; in Galatians, e.g., 1:4, 7, 13).

. Unless even the future tense points toward the conversion of Israel; Paul has not hinted at that in Galatians, but we do not know what he may have told the Galatians before.

. O’Neill, Recovery, 71–72.

. A motif heavy in Rom. 9–11; see Bachmann, Anti-Judaism, 101–23; Eastman, “Israel and Mercy,” esp. 368, 373, 385–90; tentatively, Oakes, Galatians, 192.

. For complementary surveys of views, see Matera, Galatians, 232; de Boer, Galatians, 405; Das, Galatians, 646–52.

. E.g., Trick, Descent, 341. Or to the pious Jewish remnant, as in Burton, Galatians, 358.

. So de Boer, Galatians, 408.

. E.g., Mussner, Galaterbrief, 417; Bruce, Galatians, 275; Johnson, “Israel of God”; cf. Hurtado, “Collection,” 56. Das (Galatians, 651–52) cites here esp. Bachmann, Anti-Judaism, 108; Bachmann, “Bemerkungen,” 108–17.

. With Das, Galatians, 652. Nevertheless, we cannot know what information on this Paul may have already taught the Galatians when with them (even during fairly brief stays he instructed some churches on eschatology; see 1 Thess. 1:9–10; 5:1–2; 2 Thess. 2:5–6, 15). Our ignorance probably means that we can neither assume it nor rule it out.

. Apparently Jewish believers in Jesus in Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 2, on Gal. 6:16.

. De Boer (Galatians, 405) cites here also Dahl; Calvin; Lightfoot; Ridderbos; Betz; Longenecker; Matera; Martyn; Hays; Witherington; Becker; Vouga. Matera (Galatians, 232) further distinguishes Jewish and gentile believers who “follow this rule”—i.e., all true believers—from the church, presumably not in identity but with respect to the view that the church “replaces” Israel.

. E.g., Lightfoot, Galatians, 225; Dahl, “Auslegung”; Hunter, Message, 72; Neil, Galatians, 88; Minear, Images, 71; Schlier, Galater, 283; Ridderbos, Epistle, 227; Ladd, Theology, 539; Fung, Galatians, 311 (as “the least unsatisfactory” option); Hays, Echoes, 96; Hays, “Poiēsis,” 208; Hays, “Galatians,” 346; Barclay, Obeying, 98; Hansen, Abraham, 160–61; Hansen, Galatians, 201; Dunn, “Echoes,” 477; Ray, “Identity”; Martyn, Galatians, 576; Longenecker, “Contours,” 132; Witherington, Grace, 453; Beale, “Peace”; Köstenberger, “Identity”; Silva, “Galatians,” 810; Le Cornu, Galatians, 429; Fee, Galatians, 253; Schreiner, Galatians, 383; Lyons, Galatians, 395; deSilva, Galatians, 513; Moo, Galatians, 400–403; Wright, Faithfulness, 538–43 (esp. 539), 1143–51; Philip, “Galatians,” 1630; Soards and Pursiful, Galatians, 331; Filtvedt, “Israel.”

. See Sandmel, Genius of Paul, 21; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 55.

. Argued by Fritsch, Community, 74; Jeremias, “Qumran Texts”; Vermes, Scrolls, 16–17; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 117; Flusser, Judaism, 49; Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 127; Wright, Faithfulness, 810. Cf. perhaps CD 4.3–4; 1QM 13.8; 14.8–9; 1QSa 1.1, 20; 2.12. Cf. Jubilees in Sanders, Paul and Judaism, 369–70; the Qumran sectarians in 242–47, but noting that they do not employ the specific title “Israel” in this manner (245–47); also Sanders, Law and People, 175–76.

. Bowman, Documents, ii; see esp. Josephus, Ant. 11.340–41.

. Sanders (Paul and Judaism, 152–55) ably refutes the older idea that the Pharisees claimed to be a “true Israel.”

. Cf. Dunn, Galatians, 345.

. Betz, Galatians, 323; Longenecker, Galatians, 298–99; Martyn, Galatians, 576.

. With de Boer, Galatians, 407.

. E.g., LXX Deut. 23:2–4, 9 (ET 23:1–3, 8). Another Greek translation of that term is συναγωγή (sunagōgē); e.g., LXX Exod. 12:3, 6. Cf. λαός (laos) in Richardson, Theology, 268.

. For the importance of attending to the climax, see, e.g., Weima, Endings, 237–38; Weima, “Closings.”

. Longenecker, “Contours,” 132; Barclay, Gift, 470–71. Some Targums also use circumcision figuratively as well as literally; see DeRouchie, “Circumcision.”

. Justin Martyr, Dial. 11, 119, 123, 135. See also Richardson, Israel, 9–14; Osborn, Justin, 171–85, esp. 175–78; Schoeps, Argument, 29; Bokser, “Justin and Jews,” 99, 208.

. E.g., Apos. Con. 7.1.36; Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, on Ps. 53:8; 76:2; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Eccl. Hist. 151, To the Monks of the Euphratensian.

. Levy, “Introduction,” 3. He comments further on typical medieval supersessionism and anti-Jewish readings of Galatians (4–5). Earlier, fourth-century emperors might be compared with kings of Israel (Frend, Rise of Christianity, 535).

. For modern liberal and dispensational views on ethnic Israel remaining Israel, see Cosgrove, “Church.”

. For the tragic history of Christian anti-Judaism, see, e.g., Flannery, Anguish; Parkes, Conflict. Much early Christian anti-Judaism was likely simply brought over from many gentiles’ anti-Judaic backgrounds, on which see discussion in Keener, Acts, 3:2472–77.

. See Sanders, Paul, 365, 453n15, 565–66.

. Rom. 9:27, 31; 10:19, 21; 11:2, 7, 25; 1 Cor. 10:18; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13; Eph. 2:12; Phil. 3:5; I include here Rom. 11:26, though it is disputed. Cf. also Bachmann, “Verus Israel,” 510–11.

. Ethnic, physical Israel, obscured in the NRSV. Paul is not against “fleshly” ancestry (Rom. 1:3; 4:1; 9:3, 5; Eph. 6:5), but that is not the primary relationship (2 Cor. 5:16; 10:2–3; 11:18, 22; Eph. 6:9). See Hays, Echoes, 96–97.

. From a somewhat different angle, cf. Minear, Images, 72; Wright, Faithfulness, 539.

. Within the OT, gentile adherents to Israel such as Rahab, Ruth, and perhaps David’s Philistine bodyguard became part of the covenant people, whereas the Lord cut off those Israelites who broke the covenant of God. The proportion of those who kept covenant varied, from most of Israel (minus Achan) in Joshua’s day to a small remnant in the northern kingdom in Elijah’s.

. Again, this understanding is one of several, but I have argued elsewhere that it makes the most sense of Rom. 11 in its first-century context; e.g., in Keener, Romans, 136–39. Some might be tempted to think Paul deluded in this hope, but we should also note that the gentile branches, instead of glorifying the God of Israel (Rom. 15:9–12), through most of history have boasted against the natural branches (11:18), effectively obstructing what Paul envisioned as the divine plan.

. Neil, Galatians, 88.

. See 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:1; though cf. also how long Paul continues after Phil. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:1 (perhaps closing simply an argument or intending a briefer conclusion than Paul managed; cf. Acts 20:7, 11). One sometimes cited a climactic witness at the end, as in Seneca Y., Nat. 5.18.16.

. The term (κόπος, kopos) by itself could mean that they made extra “work” for him, but with the verb let . . . cause (παρέχω, parechō) it means to cause trouble for someone. BDAG cites, e.g., P.Tebt. 21.10; BGU 844.12; P.Giss.Univ. 27.13–14; PGM 14b.4–5; Sir. 29:4.

. Fee (Galatians, 253) finds here another indication that Paul’s rivals were denouncing him.

. For history of interpretation, Moo (Galatians, 404) cites here Güttgemanns, Apostel, 126–35. Early Protestants seemed eager to dismiss the sort of stigmata attributed to Saint Francis (Johannes Brenz, Explanation of Galatians, on Gal. 6:17; Rudolf Gwalther, Serm. Gal., on Gal. 6:17 [Bray]); Lightfoot (Galatians, 225) reports more respectfully Bonaventure’s comment (Life of St. Francis 13.4) but is unaware of the tradition being current in Francis’s time. The sign of the cross is also unlikely here (Meeks, Urban Christians, 154).

. For “trouble,” see, e.g., Deut. 1:12; Sir. 22:13; 1 Macc. 10:15; for “labor,” more commonly in Paul, e.g., Gen. 31:42; Sir. 14:15; Wis. 10:17; John 4:38; 1 Cor. 3:8; 15:58; 2 Cor. 10:15; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; for either possibility, 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23, 27.

. See, e.g., Mark 14:6; Luke 11:7; 18:5; Sir. 29:4; Herm. 11.2; Acts Pet. Andr. 4.3.

. Other commentators also observe the compatibility between the branding or tattooing image and Paul’s scars; e.g., Moo, Galatians, 404; deSilva, Readings, 301.

. Stoyannos (“Stigmata”) suggests emending stigmata (tattoos) to signa (ensigns), but the text can be understood without emendation.

. Jones, “Stigma.” Pirates might be said to literally “brand” someone (Seneca E., Controv. 1.7.9). Brands often involved alphabetical letters (see Deissmann, Studies, 349); thus one was reportedly healed of such alphabetic brandmarks at Epidauros (Epidauros inscription 6; they reappeared on a transgressor instead in inscription 7).

. Sextus Empiricus, Pyr. 1.148; 3.202; so also Thracians in Artemidorus, Onir. 1.8. Local tattooing customs from Galatia could be in view, but if so, they await discovery.

. Oakes, Galatians, 193–94; as a possibility, de Boer, Galatians, 409; Moo, Galatians, 404. For postcolonial readings of this analogy, see Barrier, “Master”; Barrier, “Marks.”

. Oakes, Galatians, 194. No one else has a right to make trouble for another’s servant (cf. Rom. 14:4); cf. also the sealing of God’s slaves in Rev. 7:3–4.

. E.g., Herodes, Mimes 5.28; Martial, Epigr. 3.21. Cf. Deissmann, Studies, 349 (also noting soldiers); Lampe, Seal, 9; Aune, Revelation, 456–59; in the ancient Near East, see Mendelsohn, “Slavery,” 80–82.

. It appears in Italy during the Roman Republic (Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 34/35.2.32), but is reserved for the most disobedient slaves in Gaius, Inst. 1.13. For “delinquent slaves,” Aune (Revelation, 458) cites Aristophanes, Birds 760–61; Frogs 1508–14; Menander, Sam. 321–24; Petronius, Sat. 103.2; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 4.46; cf. Jones, “Stigma.” Toner (Culture, 71) notes the branding of “regular runaways,” citing Petronius, Sat. 103.

. Artemidorus, Onir. 1.8.

. Plutarch, Nic. 29.1. Cf. Suetonius, Calig. 27.3, for Caligula’s unique and horrible practice of branding persons of rank before consigning them to slave labor or death.

. Ps.-Phoc. 225 (my paraphrase). Nonbranding of slaves seems presupposed in Philo, Spec. Laws 1.58.

. See, e.g., Theophrastus, Char. 12.12; Apollodorus, Bibl. 2.8.2; Cicero, Fin. 4.27.76; Quintilian, Inst. 1.3.13–14; Martial, Epigr. 2.66.1–8; 8.23; Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 5.17.8–9; Plutarch, M. Cato 21.4; Tacitus, Ann. 16.19; Juvenal, Sat. 6.474–85, 490–91; Libanius, Anec. 2.9; Xenophon of Ephesus, Eph. Tale 2.6; Sir. 42:5; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 131; Boer, Morality, 225; Bradley, Slaves, 119–20; Stambaugh, City, 96 (citing Plautus, Men. 966–77).

. Demosthenes, Nic. 8. Ramsay (Galatians, 472) relates the scars to a practice evident in Turkey before abolition in which the slave was cut and the wounds not allowed to close. For slaves’ torture, see, e.g., Isaeus, Cir. 10–12; frg. 2, Hagnoth. 2; Lysias, Or. 1.16; Demosthenes, Pant. 27; Olymp. 18–19; Tim. 55–58; Con. 27; Apollodorus, Neaer. 122; Rhet. Her. 2.7.10; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 8.4.1–3; Seneca E., Controv. 6.6; 8.3, intro.; Chariton, Chaer. 1.5.1; Quintilian, Decl. 269 intro.; 272.10; 328.12; 338 intro.; Pliny Y., Ep. 10.96.8; Tacitus, Ann. 3.22, 67; 4.11, 29; 6.47; 14.60; Suetonius, Galb. 10.5; Apuleius, Metam. 10.28; Herodian, Hist. 4.5.4.

. Das, Galatians, 653.

. Philo, Good Person 10, using the term stigmata; cf. dishonorable branding in Philo, Free 55; Free 156 probably refers to marks from beatings.

. Herodotus (Hist. 2.113) claims that any slave who sought refuge in the Egyptian sanctuary of Heracles and branded himself with sacred marks, so dedicating himself to the deity, became inviolable. On sacral manumission, see comment at Gal. 5:1.

. E.g., Cullmann, State, 77; Betz, Galatians, 324; Bruce, Galatians, 276; Dunn, Galatians, 346; Witherington, Grace, 454; de Boer, Galatians, 409; as one possibility, Bedford, Galatians, 198. Contrary to some proposals, however (cf., e.g., Angus, Mystery-Religions, 97), there was no branding in Mithraism; see Beskow, “Branding,” esp. 499–500.

. Deissmann, Studies, 350; Das, Galatians, 654 (suggesting also the correspondence of this implicit threat with the opening curses in Gal. 1:8–9). Deissmann (Studies, 352–60; Light, 301) argues for the religious-tattoo interpretation especially by making an analogy with a later magical papyrus; for magicians tattooing spells on their bodies, Smith (Magician, 47–48) cites PGM 7.222–32; 8.65ff.

. Lucian, G. Syr. 59 (see, e.g., Grant, Religions, 120).

. Cf. Jer. 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37; 49:3; Wilson and Yamauchi, “Mourning,” 398–400; Hess, Religions, 107; Harrison, Leviticus, 204; Johnston, “Burial,” 105; Carpenter, “Deuteronomy,” 478; Gane, “Leviticus,” 315; Gane, Leviticus, 372, citing esp. Farbridge, Studies, 226–39.

. With Deissmann, Studies, 351; Witherington, Grace, 454.

. Josephus, Ant. 4.213; Mek. Pisha 17.106ff. (Lauterbach, 1:150ff.); Finegan, Archeology of New Testament, 225; Vermes, “Worship.” They were probably merely figurative in Deut. 6:8–9.

. Deissmann, Studies, 352; Lachs, Commentary, 366.

. 3 Macc. 2:29 (trans. H. Anderson, OTP 2:520). Happily, the story recounts that this plan was not accomplished.

. Pss. Sol. 15:6–9; the mark is a σημεῖον (sēmeion), a “sign.”

. See discussion in Keener, Acts, 1:416–18. Surgery existed, but not for the cosmetic repair of wounds.

. E.g., Homer, Od. 19.467–73; P.Ryl. 174.6–7; P.Lond. 334.6; P.Oxy. 494.31; Philostratus, Her. 12.4; Luke 24:39; John 20:25, 27.

. Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.17; Gregory of Nyssa, Oration 12 on Song 5:7 (Edwards); Luther, Second Lectures on Galatians, on Gal. 6:17 (sensitively mentioning also Paul’s mental fears); Calvin, Comm. Gal., on Gal. 6:17 (Bray); Lightfoot, Galatians, 225; Ramsay, Galatians, 472; Burton, Galatians, 360; Neil, Galatians, 88; Longenecker, Galatians, 300; Hansen, Galatians, 201; Dunn, Galatians, 347; Martyn, Galatians, 568; Ryken, Galatians, 280; Ngewa, Galatians, 172; Eastman, “Galatians,” 830, 832; deSilva, Readings, 301; Moo, Galatians, 404; Das, Galatians, 653.

. With Longenecker, Galatians, 300.

. If at all related to Gal. 4:13–14, the marks refute the idea that he is under God’s judgment, for these marks of persecution are the marks “of Jesus” (Hubing, Crucifixion, 255).

. Marius Victorinus (Ep. Gal. 2, on Gal. 6:17) refers to opposition from Paul’s rivals in Galatia, but this approach does not explain Paul’s “body” here and cannot fit the immediate context (it would imply that the reason that his adversaries should not trouble him is that they trouble him, which is nonsensical).

. For the scars identifying with Jesus’s sufferings, see also, e.g., Jerome, Comm. Gal. 3.6.17 (Edwards); Ridderbos, Epistle, 228; Betz, Galatians, 324; Bruce, Galatians, 276; Matera, Galatians, 227; Dunn, Galatians, 347; Allison, Jesus, 393–95; Eastman, “Galatians,” 827, 830; Oakes, Galatians, 193; Barclay, Gift, 397; George, Identity, 186; cf. Ensminger, “Paul the Stigmatic”; the “genitive of quality” in Hubing, Crucifixion, 254.

. For the contrast, see also, e.g., Fung, Galatians, 314; Eastman, “Galatians,” 832; Moo, Galatians, 404.

. Marius Victorinus, Ep. Gal. 2.6.17 (Edwards).

. With Witherington, Grace, 31–32, citing Quintilian, Inst. 3.8.12, for pathos and, for the wounds, Cicero, De or. 2.28.124; Quintilian, Inst. 6.1.7, 21. For pathos here, cf. also Longenecker, Galatians, cxix. Cicero has one display his scars to stir pathos: e.g., Cicero, Rab. Post. 36, in Hall, “Delivery,” 228.

. Quintilian, Inst. 6.1.30; Cicero, Verr. 2.5.1.3. Likewise, wounds could be displayed in corpses in order to stir indignation (Ovid, Fast. 2.849; Plutarch, Caes. 68.1).

. E.g., Justin, Epit. 12.8.12; Seneca E., Controv. 1.4.2; Josephus, J.W. 4.360. For sufferings more generally, see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 40.12.

. Quintus Curtius, Alex. 4.16.31–32; Silius Italicus, Pun. 9.350–51; 13.825; Dio Chrysostom, frg. 1 (Stobaeus, Anth. 3.7.28; Josephus, J.W. 1.193); cf. possibly John 20:20. One might doubt an athlete winning without bruises and other marks of valor (Maximus of Tyre, Or. 3.4). Continuing to fight despite wounds was deemed heroic (Philostratus, Her. 48.17).

. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.7.1; for the wounds of Caesar’s soldiers as proof of loyalty, see Julius Caesar, Civ. W. 1.72; Suetonius, Jul. 68.4. Cf. artificial wounds for feigned loyalty in Ovid, Fast. 2.696–99; Justin, Epit. 1.10.20; 2.8.7–8. See further Ovid, Metam. 13.262–67; Arrian, Anab. 7.10.1–3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.62.3; Livy, Hist. 45.39.17; cf. Sallust, Pomp. 1–2; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 3.2.24; or citing dangers one had faced, e.g., Aeschines, Leg. 168–69; Cicero, Cat. 4.1.2; 1 Cor. 15:30.

. Dio Chrysostom, Frag. 1 (Stobaeus, Flor. 3, 7.28 p. 316) (trans. H. L. Crosby, LCL, 5:347).

. Plutarch, Alex. 50.6.

. Josephus, J.W. 1.197. This is cited also in Smith, “Visual Culture,” 330.

. See Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6.2.74; Fitzgerald, Cracks, 43–44, 49, 59–65; Fitzgerald, “Affliction Lists.”

. Hubing (Crucifixion, 43–84 [see esp. significantly 59, 65, 72–81]) argues that, in terms of ancient letter-writing conventions, 6:18 (rather than 6:11–18) is technically the letter closing.

. See Das, Galatians, 655, following Turner, Syntax, 23, and with numerous illustrations of this grammatical pattern in Paul.

. Dunn, Galatians, 347.

. Dunn, Galatians, 347.

. Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22; Titus 3:15; Philem. 25; see also Heb. 13:25; Rev. 22:21.

. Even in the level of discipline short of excommunication, Pauline admonition emphasized treating others as brothers and sisters (2 Thess. 3:15).

. Dunn, Galatians, 348. Dunn notes the absence of adelphoi in Paul’s other closings except for Eph. 6:23. It does appear close to the end in 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:21; 1 Thess. 5:26. It was not impossible to call gentiles this—Judeans earlier called Spartan allies “brothers” (1 Macc. 12:6, 21; 14:20)—but Judeans most often reserved the title for fellow Jews (see discussion in Keener, Acts, 2:1664).

. Whether this was added by the author or, more often, by an editor. See, e.g., 3 Macc. 7:23; 4 Macc. 18:24; 3 Bar. 17:4; the ends of the books of Psalms: Pss. 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48.

↑ Back to top