6:11-18 Crucifixion, not Circumcision
Galatians
INTRODUCTION
Authorship. Virtually all scholars recognize Galatians to be from Paul.
Type of Letter. Formal divisions of letters by type occurred later and categories overlapped, but some consideration is helpful. Although Galatians has apologetic elements (i.e., points where Paul seems to defend himself), Paul is not concentrating on the kind of *rhetoric used in law courts. Rather, the argumentation in Galatians is more like “deliberative rhetoric,” the kind of argumentation ancient speakers and writers used to persuade people to change their behavior. The argument itself is very rational, and the emotional language of the letter was standard rhetoric characteristic of stern letters (Galatians includes elements of what later Greco-Roman composition handbooks called “letters of rebuke”).
Date. Some scholars have argued for a very early date (making this one of Paul’s earliest letters), because Paul does not explicitly appeal to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15; but that Paul can refer to taking Titus to Jerusalem with him (Gal 2:1) probably suggests that he had already completed his first missionary journey (Acts 13–14) and thus that the Council may have taken place (Acts 15). Galatians may thus date to the latter half of the fifties, probably some time before Romans.
Situation. Paul is clearly battling opponents who have settled in Galatia (for the location, see comment on 1:2; given the likely South Galatian theory for the location of Paul’s readers, accepted also by archaeologists of Asia Minor, Acts 13–15 provides especially helpful background for the letter). These are Jewish Christians who would rather circumcise the Galatians—thus alienating them from their own *Gentile culture—than allow Judean Jews back home to think that Christian missionaries were lax (4:29; 5:11; 6:12-13). Unlike Paul, a more seasoned missionary, these missionaries want to impose their own culture on the Galatians.
The Issue. At an earlier time, some Judean Christians had insisted that Phrygian (maybe Galatian; see comment on 1:2) believers be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1). Although the Jerusalem Council had apparently settled this issue, side effects lingered: could Gentiles be part of God’s people without circumcision? Some of the strictest *Pharisees may have required circumcision for salvation, but many Pharisees believed that any Gentiles who kept the few laws given Noah, or followed the levitical requirements for strangers in the land, would be saved. But even for this more lenient class of Pharisees (cf. Acts 15:5), one could not become part of the people of God without circumcision; very few Jews were so lenient as to accept Gentiles on such terms. Indeed, circumcision had become a or even the major cultural symbol of fidelity to Judaism: attempts to restrict the practice led to revolts both before and after Paul’s time.
Some Judean Christians were now arguing that one must become culturally Jewish to become a full Jesus-follower, fully righteous; after all, the Bible itself made this requirement for one who wished to belong to God’s people (Gen 17:10-14). Further, they may have reasoned, if Paul argued for *baptism (a post-Old Testament Jewish addition to circumcision), why could Judean Christians not require circumcision, even though it drove away potential converts? Paul argues forcefully against this view: those who submit to Israel’s *Messiah and receive the *Spirit belong to the covenant and already have what circumcision merely symbolized.
Commentaries. Among the useful commentaries on Galatians are those by Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCB (1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981); F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990); and Douglas J. Moo, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013). Helpful specialized works include George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS 73 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1985); Aliou Cissé Niang, Faith and Freedom in Galatia and Senegal (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Hans Dieter Betz, A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), offers helpful insights, although his specific model of judicial (courtroom) rhetoric for the book is questionable (see George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984]). Some of my primary sources appear in Craig Keener, “The Pillars and the Right Hand of Fellowship in Galatians 2:9,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 7 (2010): 51-58; and Craig Keener, “Three Notes on Figurative Language: Inverted Guilt in Acts 7:55-60, Paul’s Figurative Vote in Acts 26:10, Figurative Eyes in Galatians 4:15,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 5 (2008): 41-49.
1:1-5
Introduction
Like many polite ancient letters, Paul’s letters characteristically include a thanksgiving at the outset, but Galatians lacks one. In extreme circumstances, a speaker could challenge wrong behavior angrily, especially when the speaker was trusted enough to get away with it; this also fits the way of framing a letter of blame.
1:1. Letters normally opened with the sender’s name; less often, they included a description of the sender, where that was necessary. An “*apostle” was a commissioned messenger; although Paul had once been a humanly appointed agent (Acts 9:2), he is one no longer. His opponents may claim authority from Jerusalem (cf. also Judea in general—Acts 15:1). (The status that Jerusalemites had in the eyes of many other Jewish people may be illustrated by the authority others ceded to *Josephus’s opponents from Jerusalem in one of his accounts.)
1:2. Writers sometimes included greetings from others as if coauthors even though they may have contributed little beyond greetings (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 16.1.title); here perhaps their inclusion strengthens Paul’s authority. Scholars dispute whether Paul here addresses those in North Galatia (a region in Asia Minor settled by Celts, not mentioned in Acts and only slowly Christianized) or more often the South Galatian region (which some scholars call Phrygia-Galatia). If Paul uses the term especially for ethnic Galatians (Celts), he presumably means North Galatia (which includes Ancyra, Tavium and Pessinus). Given his frequent reference to provinces in his letters, it is much more likely that Paul refers to the province of Galatia, like some other ancient writers. In this case, it may instead cover the Phrygian region addressed in Acts 13–14 (including Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe).
1:3. Paul here adapts standard Jewish greetings; see comment on Romans 1:7.
1:4-5. Jewish people frequently divided history into two main ages: the present age (under the dominion of evil nations) and the future age (when God would rule unchallenged). Because the future *Messiah has already come the first time, Paul can argue that Jesus’ followers are already citizens of the future age of God’s unchallenged reign.
1:6-9
True and False Gospels
Paul minces no words in these verses; although speeches and letters often opened with praise of the hearers or a polite thanksgiving, Paul begins with a direct rebuke (noticed at least as early as Origen). This literary convention is found only among the harshest of ancient letters.
1:6. Ancient letters, including often harsher letters of blame, sometimes used the expression “I am amazed” (NASB; cf. Demosthenes, Epistles 3.11, 23). Paul replaces his usual thanksgiving with this claim.
1:7. Speakers sometimes corrected themselves with a starker claim to reinforce the point. Paul might possibly know more than he says; sometimes critics refused to dignify their enemies by naming them. Messengers who distorted the contents of their message were subject to legal penalties. In the *Old Testament those who distorted the divine message were false prophets (e.g., Jer 23:16), for whom the penalty was death (Deut 13:5; 18:20).
1:8-9. One could repeat a statement for *rhetorical effect. Some Jewish mystics of the period claimed revelations from angels (especially in *apocalyptic literature; e.g., *1 Enoch 1:2; 74:2; 3 Baruch 1:8), though Paul might use *hyperbole here. Oaths and curses were familiar in ancient religion, *magic and everyday life. Paul might allude here to the curses of the covenant leveled against those who failed to keep Moses’ *law (Deut 27–28); more clearly, this same word for “curse” appears in the *Septuagint of Deuteronomy 13, where false prophets and those who listened to them were to be destroyed.
1:10-17
Not Revealed by People
Argumentative speeches, treatises and other works often included a long *narrative section, normally in chronological order. In a defense, the narrative of events (e.g., *Cicero, For Quinctius 3.11–9.33) could precede a statement of the case (10.36) and the proofs (which can include events, but not normally chronologically; 11.37–27.85). A letter is not a speech, but Paul may draw on conventional argumentative patterns to build his case. Narrative could sometimes be autobiographical, and autobiography could be used apologetically (see, e.g., Josephus, Life 336-67). Paul here uses standard themes of ancient autobiography to bolster his argument. Themes in ancient argument included divine attestation, examination of character and behavior, and comparisons between figures personifying different values or sides of the dispute. In deliberative speeches, the speaker first had to demonstrate the integrity of his character and conduct if it were in question.
1:10. Pleasing God rather than people echoes a common theme of philosophers (and of course Scripture; cf. Ex 15:26 LXX; Deut 6:18; 12:8, 25). Many criticized demagogues who flattered the masses. Paul paints his opponents as pleasers of people (6:12-13).
1:11. “I make known to you” or “I would have you know” (NASB) was sometimes used to introduce the narrative portion of a speech. Like philosophers and moralists who presented themselves as models of the virtuous life, Paul can present himself as a model of the *gospel. But anything that could be interpreted as boasting or self-exaltation was offensive to ancient ears, unless one had proper reasons for it; defending oneself or claiming to be boasting on behalf of another (here, God) was, however, considered sufficient reason.
1:12. In argumentation, firsthand knowledge counted highly. Paul refers here to his experience recounted more fully in Acts 9.
1:13-14. “Advancing” (v. 14) is the technical language of philosophical schools for progress in one’s studies, but it was also current in *Diaspora Judaism and could naturally be applied, as here, to a student of Jewish teachers. Students often competed (frequently in friendly ways) with fellow students, normally their age peers. The Palestinian Jewish emphasis on “zeal” was commonly rooted in the models of Phinehas (Num 25:11) and the *Maccabees, who were willing to kill for God. “Traditions” could refer to general community customs, but given Paul’s Pharisaism (Phil 3:5), it probably refers to Pharisaic traditions, on which Jews discussing Pharisaism generally commented. (*Pharisees were known for their adherence to oral tradition.) Paul thus understands the Palestinian Jewish piety of his day far better than his opponents do. His position and activities are reported in greater detail in Acts 8:1-3 and 9:1-2.
1:15. That God set his servants apart even before birth is clear from Jeremiah 1:5 (see also Gen 25:23; Ps 71:6; Is 44:2; 49:1); Paul presents his own call in the light of those of the *Old Testament prophets.
1:16. “Flesh and blood” (KJV, NASB) was a common figure of speech for mortals, human beings (see “any human being”—NRSV, NIV, NLT).
1:17. “Arabia” refers to Nabatea, the area around Damascus in Syria. This area was prosperous; Greek cities like Petra (Aretas’s capital), Gerasa and Philadelphia (modern Amman in Jordan) belonged to the Nabatean Arabs, and Bedouins traveled through the land. Damascus was next to Nabatea; some think that it was controlled during this time by Nabatea’s king, Aretas IV, but more likely Nabateans wielded influence because of their numbers (a Nabatean quarter there) and mercantile prosperity (see comment on 2 Cor 11:32). Most Nabateans spoke their own dialect of *Aramaic, although Greek was also known and later (by the early second century) became dominant.
1:18-24
Return to Judea
In 1:11-24 Paul makes clear that he did not receive his gospel as a tradition from the Jerusalem *apostles; he is not, therefore, their subordinate (as a *disciple passing on tradition from his teachers would be). If his opponents claim direct tradition from Jerusalem, Paul can counter their claims by pointing out that he is an equal of the Jerusalem apostles and has his own information firsthand.
1:18-19. On ancient reckoning, where part of the first year counts as the whole, “three” years can mean two. Hospitality was important in Jewish homes. “Peter” (Petros) was the Greek translation of kefa, *Aramaic for “rock” (not yet used as a personal name).
1:20. Oaths like this one (“before God”) could be used in court to underline one’s integrity; breaking the oath invited divine judgment, and most people had enough piety to believe that God (or the gods) would execute judgment on one who took such an oath (i.e., called the gods as witnesses) in vain.
1:21. Whether or not Paul means the whole province of “Syria-Cilicia” (as he could have in this period), Paul spent time both in Cilicia (Tarsus) and Syria proper (Antioch, its capital); cf. Acts 9:30, 11:25-26 and 13:1.
1:22. Paul means “*churches of Judea” generally, not Jerusalem; his fluency in the highest and most Hellenized circles of Palestinian Jewish education (evident from 1:14 and Paul’s *rhetoric) almost certainly places his education in Jerusalem, as Acts 22:3 also suggests.
1:23-24. The few Jewish stories that culminated in the conversion of a persecutor always emphasized the greatness and power of God. Paul’s genuine *repentance would naturally produce the same response among Jewish Christians.
2:1-10
The Jerusalem Council
Although the matter is disputable, it seems likely that Paul here reports the relevant features of the Council that Luke records in Acts 15 (some prefer Acts 11:30); the issues addressed in Galatians 2:3-9 correspond to the issues addressed in Acts 15. Paul uses a variety of ancient literary devices to make his point in this passage (e.g., aposiopesis or ellipsis, antithesis). Given the probable claims of his opponents that Paul is relaxing biblical requirements to gain more converts, and that their views emanate from Jerusalem, the Jerusalem apostles’ support bolsters Paul’s case.
2:1. The “fourteen years” here probably refers to his previous visit to Jerusalem, about three years after his conversion (cf. 1:18); if the Council met around A.D. 48, Paul’s conversion may have occurred around A.D. 31, within perhaps a year of Jesus’ *resurrection. Because reckoning could include parts of years, however (fourteen could represent as few as twelve), the conversion could possibly be a few years later.
2:2. Paul sought first the support of the Jerusalem leaders for his revelation (cf. 1:12, 16), before the assembly gathered to make a decree. On the importance of majority rulings in ancient Jewish groups emphasizing consensus, see comment on Acts 15:22.
2:3-5. Although many Jews believed that nonidolatrous *Gentiles would be saved, almost no one believed that they were adopted into the covenant on equal terms with Jewish people until they were circumcised. That some Jewish believers wanted to force circumcision on Titus is thus not surprising (cf. Acts 15:5). Paul graphically describes the other side as “spies” (GNT), infiltrators who seek to betray the Christian camp and finally enslave them as prisoners of war. Paul’s incomplete sentence (in the Greek of Gal 2:4) may reflect the passion with which he was writing, and which was expected in passionate letters or speeches (for rebuke, forensic intensity or expressing anxiety).
2:6-8. Those of “reputation” (2:2, 6—NASB) are the Jerusalem *apostles (2:9). But Paul regarded God’s opinion more highly than any human opinion, no matter how highly reputed. Whenever a Greco-Roman speaker argued against tradition or custom, that speaker had to assume the burden of proof; divine revelations were, however, regarded as important evidence even among Gentiles. Many later Jewish teachers considered the majority opinion of the sages normative, to be weighed more heavily than a direct voice from heaven; but Paul circumvents an appeal to such valued tradition by appealing instead to the standard Jewish doctrine that God is an impartial judge. In 2:7-9, even the “pillars” themselves recognized Paul’s equal (but different) task. Ancient sources sometimes report friends disagreeing or even competing.
2:9. Ancient writers often used “pillar” as Paul does here, for prominent or important persons, as in our English idiom, “pillars of the community.” Receiving another’s right hand usually connoted greetings, welcome or assurance; but sometimes, as here, it indicates an agreement or treaty. “Cephas” is *Aramaic for Peter.
2:10. Palestinian Judaism sometimes called the pious “the poor”; but the literal poverty of the majority of Jewish believers in Jerusalem is more likely in view here. The *Old Testament and Judaism heavily emphasized alms for the poor, and Paul’s collection (e.g., 2 Cor 8–9) was undertaken to alleviate this need.
2:11-14
Confrontation in Antioch
Paul extends the *rhetorical technique of comparison (used positively in 2:7-8), contrasting Peter’s refusal to comply with the Jerusalem Council’s agreement with Paul’s defense of it. The Galatians should thus recognize that even if Paul’s opponents had been authorized by the Jerusalem apostles—which is not the case (2:1-10)—the Jerusalem apostles would have been wrong to have authorized them.
2:11. Jewish tradition, also supported by Jesus, warned that one should initially reprove a person privately to avoid causing undue shame or loss of face; Paul thus treats this situation as an extreme case. Antioch was the largest city of Syria-Palestine, over three hundred miles north of Jerusalem, and the center of the Jewish Christian mission to the *Gentiles (Acts 11:20; 13:1-3; 14:26-27).
2:12. Pious Jews were not supposed to engage in table fellowship with Gentiles (Acts 10:28; 11:3). The Jerusalem Jewish leaders may have agreed with Paul in theory, but they also had to keep peace within their own Jerusalem constituency and maintain their witness to their culture, with its recently rising anti-Gentile sentiments. Peter probably saw his actions here the way Paul saw his own in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22—appealing to everyone—but Paul would have seen the qualitative difference as enormous: withdrawing from table fellowship with culturally different Christians made them second-class citizens, violated the unity of the *church and hence insulted the cross of Christ. Although Peter and others undoubtedly claimed to oppose ethnocentrism, they accommodated it on what they saw as minor points to keep peace, whereas Paul felt that any degree of ethnic separatism or segregation challenged the very heart of the *gospel.
2:13-14. Jewish piety demanded that reproof be given in private; for Paul to reprove Peter publicly suggests that he regarded the offense as quite serious and urgent. “Hypocrisy” or pretense was universally regarded negatively; philosophers and Jewish wisdom writers alike attacked it.
2:15-21
Paul’s Case in Antioch
Paul seems to summarize the substance of Galatians here. (Betz even views this as the thesis statement of the book; it seems long, however, for such a statement.) Paul’s response to Peter might continue even as far as through verse 21 (as in NIV), although this is unclear.
2:15-16. Paul argues that Jewish Christians are also made righteous by faith, which does not give them any advantage over *Gentiles who must come to God on the same terms. Jewish people regarded Gentiles as different by nature; later *rabbis taught that Gentiles’ ancestors were not freed from the evil impulse at Sinai as Israel was.
2:17-18. Paul then argues—refuting opposing arguments in advance—that righteousness by faith does not lead to sinful living. He uses a *rhetorical objection to make his point, as was standard in ancient *diatribe.
2:19-20. The *law itself taught Paul the way of *Christ and Paul’s death to sin in Christ. Ancient speakers sometimes used dramatic contrasts—here, both dying and living. The closest parallels to the divine empowerment of Christ’s indwelling are *Old Testament teachings about empowerment by God’s *Spirit (although the *New Testament writers develop these teachings much further).
2:21. Paul continues his point that righteousness (both before God and in one’s behavior) comes through Christ’s life in the believer (through the Spirit—3:1-2; cf. 5:13-25). Christ would not have died if salvation could have been provided another way. Jewish people often believed that all Jews were chosen for salvation in Abraham and were saved unless they were very disobedient; by contrast, Gentiles might be saved without conversion to Judaism but could attain to Israel’s full status as members of the covenant only if they converted. By insisting that righteousness is through Christ alone, Paul places Jew and Gentile on the same terms with regard to salvation.
3:1-5
Consistency with Their Conversion
In 3:1–4:31, Paul employs an argumentative style popular in his day, with vivid images, *rhetorical questions and intense reasoning. Multiple rhetorical questions can hammer home a point, often challenging the hearer.
3:1. Good public speakers were known for their dramatic gestures and vivid accounts, enacting before their audience the very events they narrated. All major ancient writers on public speaking emphasized this vividness of speech, in which the events narrated seemed to appear before the hearers’ “very eyes” (NIV, GNT). Here Paul may mean that he acted out the crucifixion through his own lifestyle (2:20). Calling someone “foolish” was harsh (cf. 1 Cor 15:36). The term translated “bewitched” refers to the evil impact of spells (see GNT) or the “evil eye,” a jealous look with magical efficacy.
3:2. Speakers often used antithesis (contrasting opposites, as in 3:2-3, 5) in forceful argumentation. Some ancient Jewish sources link the *Spirit with human merit: for example, it was said that no one in a given generation could receive the Spirit because the generation was unworthy, even if the potential recipient were worthy. But the Galatian Christians had a different experience; they had received the Spirit shortly after leaving paganism, in keeping with the Christian teaching that the future outpouring of the Spirit on God’s people had been made available to all in Christ.
3:3. Although Paul’s opponents do not seem to have denied that the Galatians received *Christ and the Spirit before knowing the *law, they insisted that “perfect” (cf. KJV, NASB) or complete Christianity included obedience to the law. Many Jewish teachers believed that the Jewish people had been saved through *grace, but that Jews who rejected the law were lost; in their view, *Gentile converts to Judaism also had to prove the genuineness of their conversion by obeying all the details of the law. Many philosophers and pagan cults spoke of “perfection” or “maturity” as the ultimate stage of moral or (in the case of the cults) religious advancement. Circumcision was done in the “flesh” (6:12-13; Gen 17:11; *Jubilees 15:26, 33).
3:4. Here Paul asks whether their conversion by grace and consequent persecution were meaningless. An appeal to the readers’ own experience would constitute the ultimate eyewitness argument and was rhetorically effective. Sometimes speakers would hold attention by presenting and then correcting a statement.
3:5. Not only their conversion but also the miracles continuing among them were by grace. Although ancient peoples were more open to miracles than modern secularists are, the idea of a religious community (in contrast to a pagan healing shrine of Asclepius) where miracles occurred regularly would have been spectacular even in antiquity.
3:6-14
Abraham’s Blessing and the Law’s Curse
Paul here refers five times to the *law of Moses and once to the Prophets, making a case from Scripture that those who claimed to respect the law had to accept. He contrasts the message of faith (3:6-9, 14) with works directed toward the law (3:10-13), as in 3:5. (The two major interpretations of this passage are that *Gentile Christians believe as Abraham did—the traditional position, followed here—or that they are saved by Abraham’s faith [as in Judaism] and hence Christ’s faith, i.e., Abraham’s and Christ’s fidelity to the covenant.)
3:6. Paul cites Genesis 15:6, a popular Jewish proof text for showing how Abraham modeled the work of faith. For Paul it involves dependence on God’s favor rather than counting as meritorious.
3:7. Jewish people (and sometimes others) used “descendants” or “sons” (so NASB here) both literally (genetically) and spiritually (those who acted like their moral predecessors). They normally applied the title “Abraham’s offspring” (or “children”—KJV, NIV—or “descendants”—NRSV, GNT) to the Jewish people but occasionally referred specifically to those who excelled in righteousness—although Jewish people would never have applied this designation to Gentiles. Here Paul demonstrates that those who believe as Abraham did are his spiritual offspring (Gen 15:6, quoted in Gal 3:6).
3:8-9. Jewish teachers sometimes spoke of Scripture “speaking.” Because Gentiles could believe as Abraham did (3:7), they could also be made righteous as he was. (Jewish teachers saw Abraham as the model convert to Judaism and consequently would be forced to respect Paul’s argument more than they would like.) Like a good Jewish expositor, Paul proves his inference from this passage by appealing to another text dealing with the promise to Abraham (Gen 12:3 = 18:18; cf. 17:4-5; 22:18). God’s purpose all along had been to reach the Gentiles too, as had been stated at the very opening of the Abraham *narrative. Many Jewish people believed that the righteous (Israel) were chosen and saved in Abraham; here, believing Gentiles are saved (blessed) in him.
3:10. Both Genesis 12:3 and the blessings of the law in Deuteronomy 28 contrast the curses of those who oppose Abraham or those who break the covenant with the blessings of Abraham’s descendants or those who keep the covenant. Reasoning by opposites was a frequent Jewish method of interpretation. Paul thus gives the verdict on righteousness sought by the “works of” (KJV, NASB) or by “obeying” (GNT) the law: imperfect obedience brings a curse (Deut 27:26, the summary of the curses). According to Jewish teaching, human obedience was always imperfect, and God could therefore not require perfect obedience as a condition for salvation; but like a good ancient Jewish teacher would often do, Paul interprets Deuteronomy 27:26 for all that he can get from it—after all, God was in a position to demand perfection.
3:11. Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4 (on which see comment on Rom 1:17) as evidence that a righteousness based merely on human obedience is inadequate. (Some of Paul’s contemporaries understood faith here as law-obedience; 1QpHab 8.1 in the *Dead Sea Scrolls.) Paul’s knowledge of the *Old Testament is thorough: he has selected the only two texts in the entire Old Testament that speak of both righteousness and faith together (in v. 6 Gen 15:6; here Hab 2:4).
3:12. Because Habakkuk 2:4 connects righteousness and life, Paul cites another Old Testament text that refers to both, again demonstrating his Jewish exegetical skill (Jewish interpreters regularly linked texts on the basis of key words they shared). Paul contrasts the faith approach (3:11) with the works method of Leviticus 18:5 (cf. Ex 20:12, 20; Lev 25:18; Deut 4:1, 40; 5:33; 8:1; 30:16, 20; 32:47; Neh 9:29; Ezek 20:11, 13; 33:19). Although these Old Testament texts speak of long life in the Promised Land, Paul knows that many Jewish interpreters applied these texts to the life of the world to come (cf., e.g., Sifra Aharé Mot par. 8.193.1.10); hence he responds: “This is the works approach.” His opponents may have been using this text to make their case that faith was not enough. Paul agrees that the righteousness of the law has to be fulfilled, but he believes that it is fulfilled by being in Christ and living by his Spirit (5:16-25); his opponents believe that a Gentile has to achieve it by obeying the details of the law, especially the initial act of circumcision.
3:13. Again following the Jewish principle of linking Old Testament texts on the basis of key words they shared, Paul cites Deuteronomy 21:23 to show that Christ took the “curse” that belongs to all who fail to perform the whole law (Gal 3:10). Deuteronomy spoke of hanging corpses, but the punishment had long since been applied to living persons being executed.
3:14. In Jewish expectation “the blessing of Abraham” includes the whole world to come; here Paul says that believers have the down payment of that world (cf. Eph 1:3, 13-14) in the blessing of the Spirit (cf. Is 44:3). (For the relationship of the promise of land to the promise of the Spirit, cf. perhaps Hag 2:5 with Ex 12:25; 13:5.)
3:15-20
The Law Does Not Annul Abraham’s Covenant
Greeks usually used the term Paul uses for “covenant” for a “testament” or “will” (a legal document opened at someone’s death), but the *Septuagint had used this term for “covenant” and Paul expects his audience to be familiar with this biblical usage. Although Paul means “covenant” in the biblical sense rather than as “testament,” he can play on the legal nuances of the latter (wordplays were common in ancient argumentation, and Scripture spoke of Israel’s “inheritance”). Judaism stressed the covenant made at Sinai, but most Jewish writers saw that same covenant foreshadowed (or, less accurately from an *Old Testament standpoint, actually practiced in advance) in Abraham (Gen 17:9-14).
3:15. Like other legal documents, testaments or “wills” (NRSV) were sealed so they could not be altered. Once a Greek will was sealed, one did not open it to make changes, since this would require breaking the seals (cf. also Roman practice in Pliny, Epistles 5.7.1-2). Once the testator died, the will was final. Adoption was also permanent (although even a birth child could be disinherited). One kind of will divided the property immediately, the testator, however, retaining the right to use it until death. When replaced by a subsequent will, the new will might be strongly contested by the original heirs (e.g., as a forgery or the product of unethical influence). Under Greek law, testaments were confirmed by their deposit with the municipal records office; if a new testament would interfere with an older one, it was rejected. (Under Roman law, a later will nullified an earlier one; Gaius, Institutes 2.144.) As in most analogies, one does not press all points; God did not need to die for Israel to receive its promised inheritance.
3:16. Paul means that *Christ is the ultimate seed of the promise through whom the nations will be blessed; this thesis makes good sense of the promise motif in Israel’s history. But he argues his case the way the *rabbis often did: by attention to a grammatical peculiarity that was not actually peculiar. (As in English, the Hebrew term for “seed” could convey either the singular or the plural [a collective], which Paul well knew—3:29. But rabbis argued in this manner too; “sons of Israel” meant either “sons and daughters” or only the men, depending on what the rabbis needed it to mean in a given text. Paul’s opponents no doubt read Scripture this way, and Paul responds in kind; he takes “seed” as singular, a sense that the term can have in general but that does not seem to fit of the primary sense of most of the most relevant Genesis texts [Gen 13:15-16; 17:8; 22:17-18; 24:7, 60], because he already knows, on other grounds, that Christ is the epitome of Abraham’s line. When later rabbis applied “Abraham’s seed” to one person, it was naturally to Abraham’s son Isaac.) Judaism nearly always took “Abraham’s seed” as Israel; Paul would agree that this is usually what it means (Rom 9:7, 29; 11:1). But his argument in Galatians 3:6-9 permits him to apply this expression to *Gentile Christians who are in Christ, hence in Abraham.
Roman law allowed testaments to stipulate that property be left first to one heir and then to another after the first one’s death. If Paul expected his readers to know this sort of custom, this might explain how his argument for them can move in principle from Christ as the heir to all who are in Christ.
3:17-18. Many Jewish teachers argued that the *law existed before the creation of the world (though many held that its period of influence in the world started with Moses; some others believed that the patriarchs observed it before it was officially given). On the legal principle of 3:15, God would not institute a law that retracted his earlier promise based on faith. Paul might be responding to an opposing argument that the new covenant could not alter the old; if so, Paul responds that the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) returns to the original covenant. “Four hundred and thirty years” comes from Exodus 12:40. Scripture promised Israel an inheritance, and Jewish tradition spoke often of “inheriting” the coming world (e.g., *1 Enoch 5:7; *Jubilees 32:19; *4 Ezra 7:96).
3:19. The law’s function of restraining transgressions would have also made sense to non-Jewish readers: Greco-Roman philosophers felt that law was necessary for the masses but that the wise were a law for themselves. In his image of the guardian in 3:23-25 Paul elaborates on this function of the law, meant to last till the promise could be fulfilled; such an addition could not change the earlier covenant (3:15). According to post-Old Testament Jewish tradition, the law was given through angels (cf. comment on Acts 7:53), and (as in the Old Testament) the mediator was Moses himself.
3:20. Mediators intercede between two (or more) parties; if the law was given through a mediator (3:19), therefore, it was adapted to the needs of both parties. But the promise was not given through a mediator; it was a unilateral enactment of the one God (God’s oneness was the most basic belief of Judaism). Paul again argues from analogy in a manner that would be persuasive in his readers’ culture.
3:21-29
Before Faith Came
3:21. Jewish teachers said that life did come by the *law, both in this world and in the world to come (cf. 3:12; *Dead Sea Scrolls CD 3.16; *Psalms of Solomon 14:2-3; *4 Ezra 7:20-21; Mishnah Avot 6:7). But Paul here concludes his argument (3:15-20) that the law was never meant to do the work of the promise.
3:22. In contrast to Romans 3:10-18, Paul has not argued humanity’s universal sinfulness from Scripture in Galatians (Gal 3:10-12 at most implies it). Humanity’s sinfulness could be safely assumed, however, because Jewish teachers in his day agreed that all people had sinned; Paul simply takes the consequences of that sin far more seriously than other teachers did, in that the death of God’s Son was needed to cancel them.
3:23. Jewish traditions divided human history into various stages (in one tradition, chaos prevailed for two millennia, then the Torah for two millennia, and then the messianic era for two millennia); Paul likewise divides history, viewing the law as a temporary guardian till the original promise was fulfilled.
3:24. A key element in the passage is the term translated “tutor” (NASB) or, better still, “guardian” (NIV, ESV, NLT). The slave assigned to this role would watch out for the student on his way to school and help him with his manners and schoolwork, but he was not the teacher himself. Children sometimes resented but often grew fond of their slave guardians and later freed them. Such guardians were also normally better educated than the free masses; the image is not intrinsically demeaning. But it was hardly the way most other Jewish teachers would have described the law. (They occasionally describe Moses as Israel’s “guardian” till Israel grew up. Philosophers spoke of philosophy as a “moral teacher,” and Judaism spoke of the law as a “teacher.”)
3:25. The coming of faith is described in terms of coming of age, when a boy would achieve adulthood (usually about thirteen or fourteen years old in various Mediterranean cultures).
3:26. Israel was called God’s “children” in the *Old Testament and often in Judaism. In contrast to standard Jewish teaching, Paul says here that one becomes a spiritual descendant of Abraham (3:29) and child of God through faith, not through ethnic participation in the covenant.
3:27. Ancient writers sometimes spoke of being spiritually “clothed”; Judaism occasionally spoke of being “clothed” by the *Spirit (see also comments on Rom 13:12; Eph 4:20-24). *Gentiles who wanted to convert to Judaism were baptized. By putting on Christ in converting to Christianity, Gentiles took his status as Abraham’s seed (3:16, 29) and God’s child (3:26).
3:28. Some Greco-Roman cults claimed to ignore social divisions like those Paul mentions here, although they rarely erased them (most cults were expensive enough to exclude all but the well-to-do; some, however, such as the Eleusinian mysteries, welcomed a range of initiates). But the early Christians were especially distinctive in surmounting such divisions. They formed the only bridge between Jews and Gentiles and had few allies in challenging class (slave versus free) and gender prejudices. (The allies included some philosophic groups, but their views rarely proved widely influential on social mores.) Some Greeks thanked the deity for not making them animals, women or non-Greeks; some Jewish teachers thanked God for not making them Gentiles, women or ignorant people (in some versions, slaves).
3:29. The Jewish people were called “Abraham’s seed” (KJV, NIV) or “offspring” (NASB, NRSV; see comment on 3:16), heirs of the promise; Paul’s argument in this chapter has transferred this position to all believers.
4:1-11
Sons, Not Slaves
Under ancient law, sons were heirs, destined to inherit what belonged to their fathers; in contrast, slaves were part of the inherited property. The contrast between slaves and children appears elsewhere in ancient literature. But in practice and in household codes, which explained the proper relations of all members of a household with the head of the household, minor children, like slaves, were subordinated; only after leaving the home did a child achieve fullest freedom. Paul here continues the image of the slave guardian versus the child (3:24).
4:1. Under Roman law, the status of the minor still under a guardian was roughly that of a slave (at least regarding property; cf. Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 3.211).
4:2. Minors were required to be under legal “guardians” if their father was deceased (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Orations 31.73); this guardian was normally chosen from the father’s will, or, if this was unspecified, the role fell to the nearest male relative from the father’s side of the family. The “managers” (NASB) or “trustees” (NIV, NRSV) or “stewards” of estates were often slaves or freedmen but wielded considerable power. Heirs under the testator’s authority could inherit only at the time specified by the latter (Gaius, Institutes 2.87) or at puberty (1.196; later in some places, Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.13). In antiquity people considered it unwise to give a minor heir access to the resources prematurely (e.g., Sifre Deuteronomy 11.1.2).
4:3. In their previous, pagan state, the Galatians had reverenced the elements of the universe as deities (e.g., wind, fire and other aspects of nature such as the sea; Judaism had long since demythologized them as angels who ruled over nature, like those implied in Ps 148:2-4; cf. *1 Enoch 20:2; 60:12-22; 66:1-2; *Jubilees 2:2; *Dead Sea Scrolls 1QM 10.11-12). In late antiquity growing numbers feared the personified, tyrannical power Fate, which was thought to exercise its will through the astral spirits, the gods who ruled the stars. Paul believes that even the Jewish people were enslaved by such evil spiritual powers apart from Christ; see comment on 4:9.
4:4. Jewish texts often speak of the fulfillment of appointed times in history as a way of recognizing God’s perfect wisdom in and sovereignty over history (e.g., Jubilees 1:26; *4 Ezra 7:74; *Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:10). (Some commentators have compared “the fullness of the time”—NASB—to how ripe Greco-Roman culture was for the spread of Christianity; some are more reticent, citing the difficult obstacles that this culture presented to the early Christians.) Here Paul compares this fulfillment to the point at which a boy attains maturity and is considered an adult (about thirteen or fourteen years old). “Born under *law” means that Jesus was obligated to keep the law of Moses.
4:5. Greek law combined adoption with heirship; the same seems to have been true in the case of childless persons in ancient Near Eastern law (cf. Gen 15:2). Paul uses common *Old Testament imagery to make his point, however; God had made Israel his children (e.g., Ex 4:22), and the Old Testament repeatedly speaks of the land as Israel’s “inheritance,” bestowed on them by God (without any thought of God’s dying, of course).
4:6. Roman adoptions required a witness of the transaction: the *Holy Spirit performs this function here. That the Spirit should testify is natural, because Judaism understood the Spirit especially as the one who inspired the prophets; the Spirit here inspires believers, speaking to them as he did to the prophets, to remind them of their calling as God’s children. “Abba” is the *Aramaic word for “Papa,” a term of special intimacy rarely if ever used in Judaism to address God directly, undoubtedly borrowed from Jesus (see comment on Mk 14:36; Rom 8:15).
4:7. The Galatians are now freed from the slave guardian of 3:24-25, for the time has come (4:4).
4:8. Jewish people often said that the pagans did “not know God,” and that their gods, which were creations of the true God, were “not gods at all.” (Philosophers often decided the moral value of an idea or action by how it corresponded to nature; Paul and other Jewish and Christian writers recognized that worshiping a created object as if it were the Creator failed this criterion. Some pagan thinkers, following an ancient Greek philosopher named Euhemerus, distinguished between real gods, which were evident “by nature” [sun, moon, planets and stars], and those invented by people [other deities].) Jewish people, because they were in covenant with God, said that they “knew” God truly.
4:9. Speakers sometimes deliberately “corrected” themselves to make a stronger point. As was fitting in *rhetorical rebuke, Paul uses harsh language: he is not sure that the Galatians “know” God even now. As in 4:3, the “elemental things” (NASB), “forces” (NIV) or “principles” (ESV, NLT) to which they are returning are presumably the “spirits” (cf. NRSV, GNT) of nature they used to worship as gods (4:8). Foremost among these would be the astral spirits (stars and other celestial bodies), associated with special days and seasonal rituals (4:10; cf. angels of nature and seasons in 1 Enoch 72:1; 82:10-20). South Galatians were known for their strict and moralistic religion; in addition to Greek imports, Phrygians had indigenous cults, including the mother goddess (contrast perhaps Gal 4:26).
4:10. *Gentiles had unlucky days, special festivals, and so forth. Judaism had its own special calendar of holy days, new moons, sabbatical years and so forth. Paul is saying that by returning to a ceremonial, calendrical religion, the Galatians return to pagan bondage under these spirits in the heavens (4:3, 9). From a technical standpoint, this argument is standard rhetorical exaggeration: Judaism and paganism felt that they had little in common (including regarding calendars, Jubilees 6:35). From the standpoint of experience, however, they would relinquish the *Spirit (3:2; 4:6) for tradition and custom. Some commentators think that Paul here links the deified elements of paganism (4:8-9), which correspond to Judaism’s angels of nature, with the angels who gave the law (3:19); although that linkage is uncertain, Paul’s image here is negative, at best that of an adult going back under the guardianship of a slave.
4:11. The prophets sometimes complained of pleading with Israel to no avail; disappointed servants of God hoped that their devotion was not “in vain” (so KJV, NASB here), that is, not unrewarded (Ps 73:13; cf. Is 49:4; 65:23); even God’s judgments were “in vain” when Israel did not return to him (Jer 2:30). The image was that of great labor expended with no return, due to the recipients’ obstinacy (Phil 2:16; cf. 1 Thess 3:5) or the ineffectiveness of a message (1 Cor 15:2, 14, 17, 58).
4:12-20
Paul’s Plea
Although Galatians resembles a “letter of blame,” it is not the harshest sort of blame; Paul does not intend to break fellowship with his readers. In this section, Paul employs standard themes found in “letters of friendship,” emphasizing that he still loves the Galatians deeply. Ancient *rhetoricians emphasized appropriate expressions of emotion as well as logic in persuasion, and recognized the need to lighten the tone after a section of heavy reproof. Often they intensified their arguments by adding intense emotional appeal, especially toward the end of their case. Paul’s words here would thus sound entirely appropriate.
4:12. Especially in Greek culture, “friends” (so NRSV here) were viewed as “equals” (although the Roman idea of friendship between *patrons and their dependents was likewise widespread). “I became as you are” means that Paul relates to them as equals, not only as their father in the faith (4:19). Reciprocity was important (cf. 1 Kings 22:4); in ancient ideals, friends shared everything in common, so what belonged to one belonged to the other (e.g., Pliny, Epistles 1.4.2-3; 6.30.1).
4:13. Paul’s first visit (Acts 14:1-20 as opposed to 14:21-25, if we follow the South Galatian theory; see comment on 1:2) or preaching was occasioned by some “infirmity” (KJV); the term could be applied either to sickness or to injuries inflicted by persecution. *Stoic philosophers said that sickness should not affect one’s attitude, and the Galatians may have been impressed with how Paul bore up under an infirmity. Some scholars have suggested (on the likely assumption that South Galatia is in view; see the introduction) that Galatia was a good area for someone sick to go to recuperate.
4:14. Physical infirmities were quite often regarded as the curse or punishment of the gods; this belief in sickness as divine retribution appears often even in Jewish texts. Receiving Paul as God’s “angel” (cf. Acts 14:12) meant receiving him with the hospitality due the one who sent him, *Christ Jesus. Messengers were to be received as representatives of their senders. (The wording need not imply that Christ is present as an angel; cf. 1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 20; 19:27; Zech 12:8. Many second- and third-century Jewish Christians did portray Christ as the chief angel, because of the limited categories available in Judaism to communicate him to their culture. The image was discontinued in the fourth century due to its exploitation by the Arians, who regarded Christ as deity but created, although the image fit earlier use by Ebionites who rejected Christ’s divinity. Some Jewish writers, like Philo, portrayed the Word as the supreme angel, but earliest Christianity lacks any direct evidence for this portrayal.)
4:15. Sacrificing one’s eye for someone else was a figure of speech for a great sacrifice, attested in various sources. Thus Paul’s statement that the Galatians “would have dug out your own eyes to give them to me” need not mean that his infirmity (4:13-14) was an oozing eye sore, as some commentators have suggested. In Greek culture, friendship was especially demonstrated by sacrifice; Paul here reaffirms the bond that exists between himself and the Galatians. Letter writers sometimes appealed to the recipients’ love for them (e.g., Fronto, Ad M. Caesarem 5.1-2; Symmachus, Epistles 1.95.2). Likewise, letter writers sometimes affirmed their affection by protesting the recipients’ lack of or decline in comparable affection.
4:16-17. Demagogues who told people what they wanted to hear became popular through their flattery. Moralists thus always pointed out that the flatterers were not concerned for their hearers’ good; those who told them the truth openly were those who really loved them (cf. similarly Prov 27:6). Speakers would sometimes ask what crime they committed against their hearers (e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Orations 45.8) or would rhetorically confess a noncrime (cf. Acts 24:14). Speakers could complain if someone treated them as an “enemy” without good cause (*Cicero, For Sestius 52.111) or could ask why accusers treated the speaker as an enemy when he has loved them so much (Sallust, Letter of Gnaeus Pompeius 1).
4:18. In contrast to the Galatians’ response to his opponents’ flattery (4:17), the Galatians had sought Paul in genuine love (4:13-15)—as long as he was with them to defend himself (4:16). In ancient thought, letters were a surrogate for one’s presence; Paul here hopes to reverse their questioning of his teaching.
4:19. Teachers were often viewed as “fathers.” Galatians well understood the Roman custom of the ruling father, whose authority over his children was absolute. But Paul appeals to a different aspect of ancient parenthood: that of affection and intimacy. Although the image of affection was also applied to the father, Paul here takes the role of the mother as well. Labor pains were regarded as the severest pains humans experienced, and even with skilled midwives, mothers often died in childbirth. Paul’s image of his love and sacrifice—and of their apostasy—could not be more graphic. Some others in antiquity borrowed the metaphors of pregnancy, midwifery and birth pangs for their arduous work.
4:20. Rhetoricians like Isocrates recommended honestly confessing, “I am at a loss as to what to say,” when confronting an emotionally stirring and painful situation. (Pretending such distress that one could not decide what to do was called aporia by rhetoricians.) Letters were considered a surrogate for one’s presence (4:18) and were supposed to reflect the same character the person would display if present. But it was easier for Paul to write stern letters than to be stern in person (2 Cor 10:10-11); indeed, even when he was writing a letter of blame, it hurt him worse than it hurt them (2 Cor 2:4).
4:21–5:1
The Hagar-Sarah Analogy
If Genesis derives from the period of Moses and the exodus, the literary function of the Hagar *narrative could include a warning to the Israelites against going back to Egypt (Gen 16:1), although Hagar is ultimately more a positive than a negative character. Further, the entire section of Genesis (chaps. 16–21) emphasizes that the child who came according to God’s promise (the promise Abraham believed in Gen 15:6; cf. Gal 3:6, 14) was the key to everything else God had promised Abraham; the child conceived “according to the flesh,” by merely human means, was blessed by God but had nothing to do with this promise. Unlike the interpretations of *Philo and some other interpreters of his day (and not a few modern sermon illustrations), Paul’s “allegory” (a term with a wider sense in the first century) is an analogy controlled by the biblical text, not merely by what he wants to say. Some think that Paul replies to an opposing argument that only Jewish people and circumcised converts can be Abraham’s children.
4:21. “Tell me” was one way of addressing an imaginary opponent in a *diatribe. In common Jewish parlance, “the Law” included Genesis, hence the Hagar-Sarah story.
4:22-23. When Abraham and Sarah tried to have a son by human means (apart from a divine intervention), they had Hagar bear a son to Abraham (Gen 16:1-4, 15). (Scholars have often suggested that they were following an ancient Near Eastern custom of using the barren wife’s handmaid as a surrogate mother.) But God still planned to send a son miraculously, a son who would inherit the covenant God had made with Abraham (Gen 17:15-21). Paul is still playing on the slave-free image of 3:23–4:11.
4:24. Given his pedagogical views, Philo naturally interpreted Hagar as imperfect training and Sarah as perfect virtue. Paul instead draws an analogy between the slave, who produced according to the flesh, and those who seek to fulfill the *law’s righteousness according to the flesh. Hagar was from Egypt (Gen 16:1) and thus could have reminded the first Israelite readers of Genesis of their own slavery in Egypt; Mount Sinai was near Egypt.
4:25. “Arabia” included Mount Sinai, south of Judea, as well as the northward area mentioned in 1:17. The Nabataean Arabs were viewed as Ishmaelites, descendants of Hagar, in Paul’s day, thus making the connection clearer to ancient readers familiar with eastern Mediterranean geography. Commentators have suggested that Paul answers his opponents’ claims here, because an allegorical style of argumentation is rare for him. His opponents may have identified Sinai with the new Jerusalem, the place from which the law would go forth in the future (Is 2:2-4; cf. 65:17-19).
4:26. Many Jewish texts in Paul’s day reinforced the *Old Testament hope of a new Jerusalem, often speaking of a heavenly Jerusalem that would come down to earth. These texts also sometimes spoke of Jerusalem (present or future) as “our mother” (e.g., *4 Ezra 10:7; cf. Is 66:7-10 with 65:17-18). Others spoke of the Jerusalem “above” (4 Baruch 5:35). (*Gentiles often spoke of earth as a “mother,” and the mother goddess was particularly popular in Phrygian Galatia; but Gentiles also spoke of their “mother city” and would understand that Jerusalem was Judeans’ mother city.) Because Judaism associated the *Messiah and the *Spirit with the end time, Paul would naturally identify followers of the Messiah Jesus with the future Jerusalem rather than with the present one.
4:27. Isaiah 54:1, following Isaiah 53, depicts the restoration of God’s people in terms of Jerusalem as a mother giving birth (relevant for Gal 4:26). It was natural for some Jewish teachers to connect Isaiah 54:1 (which Paul cites here) with Genesis 21:2: Sarah’s giving birth typified her descendants’ giving birth after the suffering of the captivity to a restored Israel and Jerusalem. Perhaps Isaiah himself intended such an allusion (Is 51:2).
4:28. Paul’s opponents argued that one must be circumcised to enter the covenant of Abraham and Isaac and become their spiritual descendants. Although they could make a strong case from Genesis 17:10-14, Paul goes beyond Jewish tradition (which generally expected the law to be strengthened, not radically changed, in the end time). Circumcision was a sign of the covenant, but a greater proof of the new covenant is the gift of the Spirit (Ezek 36:24-27), which makes the lesser sign unnecessary; the Messiah’s coming has inaugurated a new era in which the old rules no longer strictly apply (Gal 4:4, 26). Under this new covenant, these Gentile Christians are children of Isaac, and their circumcising opponents, who resist the real point of the new covenant, are spiritual Ishmaelites.
4:29. That the inferior are envious of the superior was a frequent moral in antiquity; cf. 1 John 3:12 or Philo’s work entitled That the Worse Attack the Better (regarding Cain and Abel); the Old Testament likewise often illustrated that the wicked persecute the righteous (e.g., Ps 37:32). Paul uses this idea to explain why his Jewish Christian opponents are succumbing to the pressure of non-Christian Jewish opinion (cf. 5:11; 6:12-13).
4:30-31. Paul’s opponents felt that uncircumcised Gentiles were excluded from the covenant; Paul here argues that it is instead the opponents who are. Completing his analogy, he cites Genesis 21:10: Hagar’s line could not inherit with Sarah’s, and Sarah demanded that Abraham expel Hagar and Ishmael lest Ishmael have a legal right to Isaac’s inheritance. Paul calls on his readers to do the same—to expel his opponents, the spiritual Ishmaelites.
5:1. On the “yoke,” see comment on Acts 15:10.
5:2-6
The Real Law
In 5:2–6:3 Paul emphasizes that the real *law is of the *Spirit and of love, not of the flesh.
5:2-3. Most Jewish teachers allowed that righteous *Gentiles could be saved by keeping merely the basic laws believed to have been given to Noah; but any Gentile who converted to Judaism was responsible to keep all 613 commandments given to Israel at Mount Sinai (according to rabbinic count). Rabbis said that the law was a whole, and one had to keep all of it; rejecting any part of it was tantamount to rejecting the whole thing. *Stoics believed that all transgressions were equal (Pliny, Epistles 8.2.3); many others rejected this idea (e.g., *Cicero, On the Ends 4.27.74-75).
5:4. Although most Jewish people believed that they were born into the covenant by virtue of being Jewish, they recognized that one could be cut off from the covenant by refusing to obey it. But because salvation is only by *Christ (2:21), Paul declares that seeking it any other way leads to being “cut off” (NRSV).
5:5-6. Most Jewish people believed that the Spirit had been active in the *Old Testament and would become more fully active again in the end time. For Paul, the Spirit activates the power of the future *kingdom in believers’ lives in the present, thus enabling them to experience the “righteousness” or “justification” that will be fully revealed at Christ’s return. See comment on 6:15.
5:7-12
Paul Castigates His Opponents
5:7-8. Ancient writers on moral topics often compared the moral life to running a race. Paul here speaks of someone “hindering” (cf. NASB), possibly meaning “cutting in” (NIV, fitting the term’s etymology, though it can refer to any sort of interrupting or hindering), which throws the runners off balance and perhaps out of the race. *Rhetorically skilled persons liked to play with words, and Paul here alludes to circumcision (which involved cutting), as in 5:12 (“cut off,” KJV).
5:9. One of yeast’s most basic properties is that it spreads throughout the dough; Paul uses the same idea, possibly an ancient proverb, in 1 Corinthians 5:6 to warn of the negative effects of an unchecked spiritual malignancy.
5:10. Letter writers urging a course of action sometimes expressed confidence in their readers (e.g., *Cicero, Letters to Friends 2.4.2).
5:11. If Paul were simply converting *Gentiles to Judaism in the ordinary manner (circumcision for the men, *baptism for both men and women), he would not be experiencing Jewish opposition—to which his opponents in Galatia, more sensitive to their own culture’s expectations than to those of the Galatians’ culture, have accommodated themselves (6:12-13). (If his readers are in South Galatia, Acts 13–14 records some of the persecutions.)
5:12. “Cutting themselves off” (cf. KJV) could mean to cut themselves off from the community, but most commentators take the words as meaning “mutilate” (NASB), “emasculate” (NIV) or “castrate” (NRSV, GNT) themselves: while they are circumcising others, they ought to make a full sweep of themselves and remove the entire organ. Although Paul’s language purposely avoids being explicit, there is no reason to think that such an insult is beneath him; witty insults were the mark of good public speakers in the heat of debate, and Paul is far more impassioned in his criticism of his opponents than in his blame of the Galatians themselves. Many pagans thought of circumcision as a form of mutilation, and the Roman emperor Hadrian later outlawed it under an anticastration law. (Many people also ridiculed some self-castrated followers of a Phrygian goddess.) But as Paul knew, Jewish people particularly abhorred eunuchs, castrated men (Deut 23:1).
5:13-18
Fulfilling the Law
5:13-14. Other Jewish teachers also summarized the humanward commandments of the *law in terms of this quotation from Leviticus 19:18; Paul prefers this summary to all others, however, because this was the summary Jesus offered (Mk 12:31).
5:15. The ancients (especially in the *Old Testament and Jewish sources, e.g., Prov 30:14; Ezek 34:3; Mic 3:2-3) used the metaphor of being eaten by others as a grotesque description of a horrible fate or inconceivable wickedness, such as exploitation (literal cannibalism horrified ancient sensitivities even more than it does modern ones).
5:16. The Old Testament and Judaism spoke of “walking” (so KJV and NASB here) in the way of the Lord, in righteousness, in the law and so on (e.g., Lev 26:3; 1QS 3.9; 5.10 in the *Dead Sea Scrolls); it meant “behaving” in these ways. Jewish teachers described their moral laws derived from the Old Testament law as halakhah, which literally means “walking.” Although this expression was not as common in Greek, Paul’s hearers (especially those becoming more acquainted with the Old Testament and Judaism) would understand his point. He may allude here to Ezekiel 36:27: when God put his *Spirit in his people in the end time, they would walk in all his commandments, even though they had failed to keep the law’s righteousness in their own strength.
5:17. “Flesh” is human weakness and mortality (“human nature”—GNT), and suggests the best (or worst) anyone can do in himself or herself. Philosophers and Jewish teachers sometimes spoke of an internal conflict between reason and passion, but some argue that the point here is that, because flesh has nothing in common with God’s power, one can be either a person of the Spirit (a Christian) or a person of the flesh (one who runs his or her own life without depending on God); one cannot have it both ways (5:16, 18). (Where such binary language appears in ancient sources, it speaks in principle rather than claiming perfection; although the Dead Sea Scrolls recognize that all humans are imperfect in themselves, they speak of humans being ruled either by the spirit of truth or the spirit of error.) See comment on the introduction to Romans 8:1-11.
5:18. Philosophers often said that the wise person needed no laws, because he would simply choose to do what was right by the law written in his heart; the Old Testament also speaks of the law’s being written in one’s heart, a benefit that characterizes especially the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). The Old Testament often described Israel’s being “led” by God, especially in the wilderness after he redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.
5:19-26
Flesh Versus Spirit
When “flesh” referred to people in the *Old Testament, it meant humans viewed in terms of their finiteness, creatureliness and mortality. The *Dead Sea Scrolls thus often apply this idea especially to the moral weakness of humans in themselves, their susceptibility to sin.
The *Spirit of God, however, energized people in the Old Testament to speak and do God’s works miraculously. In the Old Testament, flesh and Spirit had nothing in common (Gen 6:3). (The view that Paul contrasts the human body with the human spirit, rather than human weakness and God’s Spirit, is based on a Platonic misreading of Paul, the sort that led to *Gnosticism. Despite its strong condemnation of Gnosticism, the later *church was influenced by some of the same Greek philosophical ideas.) Paul thus declares that those who have God’s presence living inside them by the Spirit have new moral ability (cf. Ezek 36:25-27) and are able to reflect God’s own character; for Paul, this was the only way for believers to live out the new life.
5:19-21. Ancient writers commonly used lists of vices, as here, although Paul is much more forceful (v. 21) than most Gentile writers (who often said one merely needed to avoid excess in most vices). Ancient moralists also could use lists of virtues (5:22-23; Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 4.3; in the Old Testament, cf. Ps 15). Some writers, like here, laid vice and virtue lists side by side to contrast them. The standard moral image of the “two ways” (the good and bad ways) or two dominions is frequent in both Jewish and non-Jewish texts. “Works” (KJV) recalls the “works of the *law” that Paul has challenged throughout the letter (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, 12), but “of the flesh” (KJV, NASB, NRSV) tells why: they are merely human, without God’s empowerment.
5:22. The Old Testament also uses the metaphor of God’s people bearing “fruit” (e.g., Is 27:6; Hos 10:1; 14:8); Greek sometimes employed the term figuratively. Here Paul contrasts “fruit” with “works” (5:19) because fruit is simply produced by the nature of the tree, and for Paul, believers’ nature has been made new in *Christ (5:24). Philosophers sometimes contrasted positive and negative emotions (Peripatetics trying to rule the latter, and *Stoics rejecting the latter wholesale); some of their positive ones correspond with much of Paul’s fruit of the Spirit, although his concern is moral more than emotional (e.g., “peace” may be at least partly relational, Rom 12:18; 14:19; 2 Cor 13:11).
5:23. Self-control was one of the virtues most emphasized by philosophers and respected in Roman society. Philosophers often taught that the wise needed no law to regulate them, because their virtue itself was a law. Paul says that people of the Spirit fulfill the moral intent of the law (5:14) by means of the Spirit guiding their lives.
5:24. Philosophers warned about the dangers of unchecked passions; Stoics (the most popular philosophic school of the era) spoke of all passions (negative emotions) being eradicated in the (ideal) wise person, although generally not claiming to have attained this themselves. Paul speaks here not of controlling or overcoming passions, however, but of a completed death with *Christ in principle (2:20; 6:14). Paul nearly always uses verbs in the past tense for this death; one does not die to sin gradually (which the imperfect or present tense would suggest) by works, but one accepts one’s completed (the aorist and perfect tenses he uses signify the action is completed) righteousness by faith and learns to live accordingly (5:19-23).
5:25. Believers “live” or “have life” by the Spirit; they should then “behave” or “walk” (KJV, NASB) the Spirit’s way, which will fulfill the moral principles of biblical law (5:16).
5:26. Paul returns (5:15) to a call to harmony, a common theme of ancient speakers. For Paul, true depth of relationship with God must be expressed in one’s relationships with others.
6:1-5
Restoring Others Meekly
Paul continues his exposition on the true law of the *Spirit, the law of *Christ (6:2). The gentleness that comes from the Spirit (5:23) is the proper way to correct faults; conversely, the legalist who is obsessed with addressing his or her own spirituality by fleshly means will have little patience with the spiritual needs of others.
6:1. A variety of ancient sources, including Greek and Jewish wisdom traditions and the *Dead Sea Scrolls, stressed wise and patient reproof for the other person’s good, and often stressed examining oneself before correcting others. Judaism considered humility one of the greatest virtues, even for the most noble.
6:2. The image of bearing another’s “burden” or “weight” (the term was also applied metaphorically to griefs) might remind readers of slaves or of impressment (Roman soldiers could require local people to carry something for them). In either case, it is an image of subservience that demands more than convenience. “Bear burdens” in this context must include helping a fellow Christian deal with sins (6:1). Many take “law of Christ” as referring to a saying of Jesus; others argue that in the context of Galatians it more likely refers to his example and the character of Jesus imparted by the Spirit (2:20; 5:14).
6:3. Philosophers also warned about the ignorant thinking themselves to be someone when they were nothing (*Epictetus, Discourses 2.24.19; Diogenes Laertius 2.38).
6:4-5. Greek literature includes some maxims similar to “each one shall bear his own load” (6:5, NASB), which usually stress self-sufficiency. This could relate here to supporting oneself and others (6:6), but in the context of stressing humility in dealing with others (6:1, 3-4), bearing one’s own load (6:5) might mean answering to God himself for what one has done (6:7-8).
6:6-10
Providing for Others
This passage may have a financial emphasis (6:6, 10), although it need not be limited to the collection for the Jerusalem *church (1 Cor 16:1), as some scholars have suggested.
6:6. Many teachers charged fees for their instruction; some philosophers insisted that they and their students should share all things in common, and some groups of teachers and *disciples lived communally. Here Paul urges the Galatian Christians to support their teachers who could provide sound teaching (unlike that of his opponents).
6:7. Reaping what one sowed was a familiar image in antiquity (in the *Old Testament, e.g., Job 4:8; Prov 22:8; Hos 8:7; 10:12; cf. Prov 11:18; Is 3:10; Jer 12:13; widespread in other Jewish literature). Paul elsewhere used sowing as a monetary image (2 Cor 9:6), as did some other ancient authors; thus here he might continue the thought of 6:6. “Do not be deceived” was a familiar phrase in ancient moral exhortation (e.g., *Epictetus, Discourses 2.20.7; 2.22.15).
6:8-9. On the flesh’s mortality, see the introduction to 5:19-26; Paul often associates the Spirit with *resurrection of the body (cf. Ezek 37:5-14).
6:10. With the exception of the *Cynics, philosophers and moralists advocated working for the common good; no one would have complained about a group that lived accordingly. Paul’s emphasis is especially on (though not limited to) ministering to the needs of one’s fellow believers.
6:11-18
Crucifixion, not Circumcision
Greeks and Romans viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the flesh, but it in no way compared with the most shameful and painful form of death employed in the Roman world—crucifixion.
6:11. Most letters of this length were dictated to *scribes, who wrote small to finish the task quickly. Paul, who may be unaccustomed to writing full letters (or whose hands, some suggest, may have been weakened by leatherworking in cold artisan shops in the winter), cannot write small and quickly. Some documents also seem to have called attention to especially important points at their beginning or end by using larger letters. Whatever the purpose of “large letters” here, the main point is that not a scribe but Paul himself writes this section, as the handwriting shows. Paul’s special effort expresses (as it often did) special affection, his literary competence and/or the special importance of what he writes.
6:12-13. The metaphor here is grotesque: Paul has been assailing those who live “by the flesh,” by merely human, mortal power, ignoring God; physical circumcision was commonly said to be “in the flesh” (so also KJV, NASB, NRSV here). Here Paul may speak of these culture-bound missionaries as if they want to show the Galatians’ foreskins to their senders. See comment on 4:29 and 5:11.
6:14. Paul boasts in a wounding (cf. 6:17) far more severe than circumcision: crucifixion. He is thus unafraid to face persecution from hostile Jewish leaders; cf. 5:11.
6:15. “New creation” means that the life of the future world has begun in believers now (see comment on 5:5-6; 2 Cor 5:17). Again Paul appeals to the product of God’s power, as opposed to any merely human effort.
6:16. Paul blesses those who “walk by this rule” (NASB) as opposed to the “rule” of Jewish halakhah (see comment on 5:16). The phrase “peace be with/on” someone was a common Jewish expression; it is one of the most common phrases on Jewish tombs. “Peace be on Israel” was also a regular *synagogue prayer, the final benediction of the Amidah (its basis is as early as Ps 125:5; 128:6); it is a fitting antithesis to the curse against the *law’s distorters in 1:8-9. (The blessing of “mercy upon” someone was also familiar; e.g., *Jubilees 1:20; 22:9; *Psalms of Solomon 4:25.) Scholars dispute whether “Israel” here means the faithful Jewish remnant or all believers as spiritual heirs of Abraham (3:7, 29).
6:17. Soldiers or others often displayed their wounds as signs of loyalty or to invite sympathy for their claims. Some slaves (cf. *Philo, That Every Good Person Is Free 10), criminals and prisoners of war were tattooed, as were devotees of some religious cults in Egypt and Syria. Greeks and Romans normally associated tattooing with barbarians, and branding was usually reserved for horses. Paul’s term is the one normally used for tattooing, but could more commonly apply simply to any mark or puncture wound. In this context, Paul simply means that he was crucified with *Christ (6:14), who was flogged and nailed to the cross; the evidence was Paul’s “scars” (GNT) from his past persecutions (5:11; 6:12-13).
6:18. The term often translated “brothers” here means “siblings” (i.e., “brothers and sisters”—NRSV; in Greek, a masculine plural form can include women). It was regularly applied to those of one’s race or nationality, but members of religious associations also often addressed one another in this manner; see comment on Acts 9:17. For a blessing of *grace, see comment on Galatians 1:3; Romans 1:7.