Text -- Galatians 5:11 (NET)

5:11 Now, brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Gal 5:11

Why am I still persecuted? ( ti eti diōkomai̇ ).

Some of the Judaizers even circulated the slander that Paul preached circumcision in order to ruin his influence.

Vincent: Gal 5:11

And I

In sharp contrast with the disturber.

Vincent: Gal 5:11

If I yet preach circumcision ( εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω )

Commonly explained as an allusion to a charge circulated by the Judaisers that Paul preached or sanctioned the circumcision of Gentile converts in churches outside of Galatia, as, for example, in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3. But it is quite unlikely that any such charge was circulated. The Judaisers would not have founded such a charge on an individual case or two, like Timothy's, especially in the face of the notorious fact that Paul, in Jerusalem and Antioch, had contested the demand for the circumcision of Gentile Christians; and Paul's question, " Why do I suffer persecution?" would have been pertinent only on the assumption that he was charged with habitually . not occasionally , preaching circumcision. Had the Judaisers actually circulated such a charge, Paul would have been compelled to meet it in a far more direct and thorough manner than he does here. He would have been likely to formulate the charge, and to deal incisively with the inconsistency in his preaching which it involved. The course of his thought is as follows: " He that troubleth you by preaching circumcision shall bear his judgment; but I am not a disturber - not your enemy (Gal 4:16), for I do not preach circumcision; and the proof of this is that I am persecuted. If I preached circumcision, there would be no offense, and therefore no disturbance; for the cross would cease to be an offense, if, in addition to the cross, I preached just what the Judaisers assert, the necessity of circumcision."

Vincent: Gal 5:11

Yet ( ἔπι )

As in the time before my conversion. The second ἔπι is not temporal but logical, as Rom 3:7; Rom 9:19. What further ground is there for persecuting me?

Vincent: Gal 5:11

Then ( ἄρα )

As a consequence of my preaching circumcision.

Vincent: Gal 5:11

The offense of the cross ( τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ )

Comp. 1Co 1:23. For offense , see on offend , Mat 5:29.

Vincent: Gal 5:11

Ceased ( κατήργηται )

Lit. been done away or brought to nought . See on Gal 5:4. If Paul had preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the preaching of the cross would have ceased to be an offense, because, along with the cross, Paul would have preached what the Judaisers demanded, that the Mosaic law should still be binding on Christians. The Judaisers would have accepted the cross with circumcision, but not the cross instead of circumcision. The Judaisers thus exposed themselves to no persecution in accepting Christ. They covered the offense of the cross, and conciliated unbelieving Jews by maintaining that the law was binding upon Christians. See Gal 6:12.

Wesley: Gal 5:11

As that troubler seems to have affirmed, probably taking occasion from his having circumcised Timothy.

Wesley: Gal 5:11

The grand reason why the Jews were so offended at his preaching Christ crucified, and so bitterly persecuted him for it, was, that it implied the abolition of the law. Yet St. Paul did not condemn the conforming, out of condescension to the weakness of any one, even to the ceremonial law; but he did absolutely condemn those who taught it as necessary to justification.

JFB: Gal 5:11

Translate, "If I am still preaching (as I did before conversion) circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" The Judaizing troubler of the Galatians had said, "Paul himself preaches circumcision," as is shown by his having circumcised Timothy (Act 16:3; compare also Act 20:6; Act 21:24). Paul replies by anticipation of their objection, As regards myself, the fact that I am still persecuted by the Jews shows plainly that I do not preach circumcision; for it is just because I preach Christ crucified, and not the Mosaic law, as the sole ground of justification, that they persecute me. If for conciliation he lived as a Jew among the Jews, it was in accordance with his principle enunciated (1Co 7:18, 1Co 7:20; 1Co 9:20). Circumcision, or uncircumcision, are things indifferent in themselves: their lawfulness or unlawfulness depends on the animus of him who uses them. The Gentile Galatians' animus in circumcision could only be their supposition that it influenced favorably their standing before God. Paul's living as a Gentile among Gentiles, plainly showed that, if he lived as a Jew among Jews, it was not that he thought it meritorious before God, but as a matter indifferent, wherein he might lawfully conform as a Jew by birth to those with whom he was, in order to put no needless stumbling-block to the Gospel in the way of his countrymen.

JFB: Gal 5:11

Presuming that I did so, "then," in that case, "the offense of (stumbling-block, 1Co 1:23 occasioned to the Jews by) the cross has become done away." Thus the Jews' accusation against Stephen was not that he preached Christ crucified, but that "he spake blasphemous words against this holy place and the law." They would, in some measure, have borne the former, if he had mixed with it justification in part by circumcision and the law, and if he had, through the medium of Christianity, brought converts to Judaism. But if justification in any degree depended on legal ordinances, Christ's crucifixion in that degree was unnecessary, and could profit nothing (Gal 5:2, Gal 5:4). Worldly Wiseman, of the town of Carnal Policy, turns Christian out of the narrow way of the Cross, to the house of Legality. But the way to it was up a mountain, which, as Christian advanced, threatened to fall on him and crush him, amidst flashes of lightning from the mountain [BUNYAN, Pilgrim's Progress] (Heb 12:18-21).

Clarke: Gal 5:11

If I yet preach circumcision - it is very likely that some of the false apostles, hearing of Paul’ s having circumcised Timothy, Act 16:3, which must have been done about this time, reported him as being an advocate for circumcision, and by this means endeavored to sanction their own doctrine. To this the apostle replies: Were it so, that I am a friend to this measure, is it likely that I should suffer persecution from the Jews? But I am every where persecuted by them, and I am persecuted because I am known to be an enemy to circumcision; were I a friend to this doctrine, the offense of the cross - preaching salvation only through the sacrifice of Christ, would soon cease; because, to be consistent with myself, if I preached the necessity of circumcision I must soon cease to preach Christ crucified, and then the Jews would be no longer my enemies.

Calvin: Gal 5:11

11.And I, brethren. This argument, is drawn from the final cause. “It would be completely in my power,” he says, “to avoid the displeasure of men, and every kind of danger and persecution, were I only to mix ceremonies with Christ. The earnestness with which I oppose them is not on my own account, nor for my own advantage.” But does it therefore follow that his doctrine is true? I answer, proper feelings and pure conscience, when manifested by a teacher, have no small share in obtaining confidence. Besides, it cannot be believed that any man would be so mad as to take measures, of his own accord, for bringing distress upon himself. Lastly, he throws upon his adversaries the suspicion, that, in preaching circumcision, they were more disposed to consult their own ease than to be faithful in the service of Christ. In short, Paul was at the farthest remove from ambition, covetousness, or regard to personal interest, since he despised favor and applause, and exposed himself to the persecutions and fury of the multitude rather than swerve a hair’s-breadth from the purity of the gospel.

Then is the offense of the cross ceased. Willingly does Paul, in speaking of the gospel, call it the cross, or the preaching of the cross, when he wishes to bring its poor, simple style, into contrast with the “great swelling words” (Jud 1:16) of human wisdom or righteousness. For the Jews, puffed up with an ill-founded confidence in their righteousness, and the Greeks, with a foolish belief of their wisdom, despised the meanness of the gospel. When therefore he says that now, If the preaching of circumcision be admitted, the offense of the cross will no longer exist, he means that the gospel will meet with no annoyance from the Jews, but will be taught with their entire concurrence. And why? Because they will no longer take offense at a pretended and spurious gospel, gathered out of Moses and out of Christ, but will look with greater indulgence on that mixture which will leave them in possession of their former superiority.

TSK: Gal 5:11

if : Gal 2:3; Act 16:3

why : Gal 4:29, Gal 6:12, Gal 6:17; Act 21:21, Act 21:28, Act 22:21, Act 22:22, Act 23:13, Act 23:14; 1Co 15:30; 2Co 11:23-26

the offence : Isa 8:14; Rom 9:32, Rom 9:33; 1Co 1:18, 1Co 1:23; 1Pe 2:8, 1Pe 2:9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gal 5:11

And I, brethren - Paul here proceeds to vindicate himself from giving countenance to the doctrines which they had advanced there. It is evident that the false teachers in Galatia appealed to Paul himself, and alleged that he insisted on the necessity of circumcision, and that they were teaching no more than he taught. On what they founded this is unknown. It may have been mere slander; or it may have arisen from the fact that he had circumcised Timothy Act 16:3, and, possibly, that he may have encouraged circumcision in some other similar cases. Or it may have been inferred from the fact (which was undoubtedly true) that Paul in general complied with the customs of the Jews when he was with them. But his conduct and example had been greatly perverted. He had never enjoined circumcision as necessary to salvation; and had never complied with Jewish customs where there was danger that it would be understood that he regarded them as at all indispensable, or as furnishing a ground of acceptance with God.

If I yet preach circumcision - If I preach it as necessary to salvation; or if I enjoin it on those who are converted to Christianity.

Why do I yet suffer persecution? - That is, from the Jews. "Why do they oppose me? Circumcision is the special badge of the Jewish religion; it implies all the rest (see Gal 5:2); and if I preach the necessity of that, it would satisfy the Jews, and save me from persecution. They would never persecute one who did that as they do me; and the fact that I am thus persecuted by them is full demonstration that I am not regarded as preaching the necessity of circumcision."It is remarkable that Paul does not expressly deny the charge. The reason may be, that his own word would be called in question, or that it might require much explanation to show why he had recommended circumcision in any case, as in the case of Timothy; Act 16:3. But the fact that he was persecuted by the Jews settled the question, and showed that he did not preach the necessity of circumcision in any such sense as to satisfy them, or in any such sense as was claimed by the false teachers in Galatia. In regard to the fact that Paul was persecuted by the Jews; see Act 14:1-2, Act 14:19; Act 17:4-5, Act 17:13; compare Paley, Hora Paulina, Galat. no. v.

Then is the offence of the cross ceased - "For if I should preach the necessity of circumcision, as is alleged, the offence of the cross of Christ would be removed. The necessity of depending on the merits of the sacrifice made on the cross would be taken away, since then people could be saved by conformity to the laws of Moses. The very thing that I have so much insisted on, and that has been such a stumbling-block to the Jews (see the note at 1Co 1:23), that conformity to their rites was of no avail, and that they must be saved only by the merits of a crucified Saviour, would be done away with."Paul means that if this had been done, he would have saved himself from giving offence, and from the evils of persecution. He would have preached that people could be saved by conformity to Jewish rites, and that would have saved him from all the persecutions which he had endured in consequence of preaching the necessity of salvation by the cross.

Poole: Gal 5:11

It should seem by what the apostle saith in this verse, that some of these false teachers had quoted the apostle for them, as if he himself had preached circumcision; possibly taking advantage from his circumcising Timothy, not distinguishing between what was done by Paul as of liberty, and to avoid the offence of the Jews, and what they pressed as necessary to be done (besides believing in Christ) for justification. Now, (saith the apostle),

if I yet preach up circumision as necessary to be observed,

why do I yet suffer persecution? Why am I then persecuted by the Jews, as one apostatized from their religion?

Then is the offence of the cross ceased: by the cross, he eihter means the cross of Christ; then the sense is: It is my opposing the observance of their law, that more offendeth them than my preaching of Christ crucified. Or else he meaneth the afflictions which he suffered for the sake of Christ and the gospel; (in which sense the term is used, Mat 16:24 Luk 9:23 14:22 ); then the sense is, that all sufferings for the owning and preaching of Christ are at an end; let us but yield the Jews that point, (that Christians are obliged to the observance of the law of Moses), the great quarrel between them and us is at an end; but their daily persecuting of me is a sufficient demonstration that I do not preach up circumcision.

Gill: Gal 5:11

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision,.... The apostle was traduced by the false teachers, as a preacher of circumcision himself in some places; and this they did partly to show him to be a variable and inconsistent man, who preached one doctrine in one place, and another in another place, and so not to be attended to; and partly with others, to draw them into their scheme upon his authority: what might give them the handle, or at least what they improved to this purpose, might be his circumcising of Timothy; but though he did this as a thing indifferent, and for the sake of the Jews, to make them easy; yet he never preached it after his conversion, and much less as necessary to justification and salvation, as these men did. This calumny he refutes by putting the following question or questions;

why do I yet suffer persecution? as is clear he did, for being against it, and preaching it down; great part of the persecutions the apostle endured was from the Jews, and that on account of his teaching them everywhere, that were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, and that they should not circumcise their children, and walk after the customs of their nation; a clear point this, that he did not preach it; had he, persecution from this quarter would not have followed him; and he could have done it with a good conscience, he must act a very weak part in suffering persecution on that account. The Arabic version gives the words a very different turn, and yet furnishes an answer to the calumny; "why do I persecute him that uses it?" that is, if I am a preacher of it, why am I so warm and violent an opposer of those that submit to it? these things are so opposite that there is no reconciling them; to the same purpose is the Ethiopic version: "then is the offence of the cross ceased". The last mentioned version reads it, "the cross of Christ"; and so the Alexandrian copy; meaning not the cross of affliction, reproach, and persecution, which Christ has enjoined every follower of his to take up and bear for his sake, and is offensive to the carnal man; nor the cross on which he suffered, or the sufferings of the cross; but the doctrine of salvation by a crucified Christ, which was an offence and a stumblingblock to the Jews; now if the apostle had preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the other doctrine must have been dropped, and consequently the offence taken at it must have ceased, whereas it was not. The Syriac version reads by way of question, "is the offence of the cross ceased?" no it is not, a plain case then is, that the apostle did not preach circumcision, but only a crucified Christ, as necessary to salvation. Moreover, the Jews that believed would not have been so offended as they were at his preaching, had he preached the one as well the other; their offence was not that he preached Christ crucified, but that he preached, that, by the cross of Christ, circumcision and the other rituals of the ceremonial law were now abolished.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gal 5:11

¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:11.

² sn That is, if Paul still teaches observance of the Mosaic law (preaches circumcision), why is he still being persecuted by his opponents, who insist that Gentile converts to Christianity must observe the Mosaic law?

³ sn The offense of the cross refers to the offense to Jews caused by preaching Christ crucified.

⁴ tn Or “nullified.”

Geneva Bible: Gal 5:11

^{( 10 )} And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

^{( 10 )} He wishes them to consider that he seeks not his own profit in this matter, seeing that he could avoid the hatred of men if he would join Judaism with Christianity.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gal 5:1-26

1 He wills them to stand in their liberty,

3 and not to observe circumcision;

13 but rather love, which is the sum of the law.

19 He reckons up the works of the flesh,

22 and the fruits of the Spirit,

25 and exhorts to walk in the Spirit.

Combined Bible: Gal 5:11

color="#000000"> 11. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.  

  

In his great desire to recall the Galatians, Paul draws himself into the argument. He says: "Because I refuse to recognize circumcision as a factor in our salvation, I have brought upon myself the hatred and persecution of my whole nation. If I were to acknowledge circumcision the Jews would cease to persecute me; in fact they would love and praise me. But because I preach the Gospel of Christ and the righteousness of faith I must suffer persecution. The false apostles know how to avoid the Cross and the deadly hatred of the Jewish nation. They preach circumcision and thus retain the favor of the Jews. If they had their way they would ignore all differences in doctrine and preserve unity at all cost. But their unionistic dreams cannot be realized without loss to the pure doctrine of the Cross. It would be too bad if the offense of the Cross were to cease." To the Corinthians he expressed the same conviction: "Christ sent me. . .to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." ( 1Co 1:17 .)  

  

Here someone may be tempted to call the Christians crazy. Deliberately to court danger by preaching and confessing the truth, and thus to bring upon ourselves the hatred and enmity of the whole world, is this not madness? But Paul does not mind the enmity of the world. It made him all the bolder to confess Christ. The enmity of the world in his estimation augurs well for the success and growth of the Church, which fares best in times of persecution. When the offense of the Cross ceases, when the rage of the enemies of the Cross abates, when everything is quiet, it is a sign that the devil is the door-keeper of the Church and that the pure doctrine of God's Word has been lost.  

  

Saint Bernard observed that the Church is in best shape when Satan assaults it on every side by trickery and violence; and in worst shape when it is at peace. In support of his statement he quotes the passage from the song of Hezekiah: "Behold, for peace I had great bitterness." Paul looks with suspicion upon any doctrine that does not provoke antagonism.  

  

Persecution always follows on the heels of the Word of God as the Psalmist experienced. "I believe, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted." ( Psa 116:10 .) The Christians are accused and slandered without mercy. Murderers and thieves receive better treatment than Christians. The world regards true Christians as the worst offenders, for whom no punishment can be too severe. The world hates the Christians with amazing brutality, and without compunction commits them to the most shameful death, congratulating itself that it has rendered God and the cause of peace a distinct service by ridding the world of the undesired presence of these Christians. We are not to let such treatment cause us to falter in our adherence to Christ. As long as we experience such persecutions we know all is well with the Gospel.  

  

Jesus held out the same comfort to His disciples in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew. "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven." The Church must not come short of this joy. I would not want to be at peace with the pope, the bishops, the princes, and the sectarians, unless they consent to our doctrine. Unity with them would be an unmistakable sign that we have lost the true doctrine. Briefly, as long as the Church proclaims the doctrine she must suffer persecution, because the Gospel declares the mercy and glory of God. This in turn stirs up the devil, because the Gospel shows him up for what he is, the devil, and not God. Therefore as long as the Gospel holds sway persecution plays the accompaniment, or else there is something the matter with the devil. When he is hit you will know it by the havoc he raises everywhere.  

  

So do not be surprised or offended when hell breaks loose. Look upon it as a happy indication that all is well with the Gospel of the Cross. God forbid that the offense of the Cross should ever be removed. This would be the case if we were to preach what the prince of this world and his followers would be only too glad to hear, the righteousness of works. You would never know the devil could be so gentle, the world so sweet, the Pope so gracious, and the princes so charming. But because we seek the advantage and honor of Christ, they persecute us all around.  

  

MHCC: Gal 5:7-12

The life of a Christian is a race, wherein he must run, and hold on, if he would obtain the prize. It is not enough that we profess Christianity, but we must run well, by living up to that profession. Many who set out fairly in religion, are hindered in their progress, or turn out of the way. It concerns those who begin to turn out of the way, or to tire in it, seriously to inquire what hinders them. The opinion or persuasion, Gal 5:8, was, no doubt, that of mixing the works of the law with faith in Christ in justification. The apostle leaves them to judge whence it must arise, but sufficiently shows that it could be owing to none but Satan. It is dangerous for Christian churches to encourage those who follow, but especially who spread, destructive errors. And in reproving sin and error, we should always distinguish between the leaders and the led. The Jews were offended, because Christ was preached as the only salvation for sinners. If Paul and others would have admitted that the observance of the law of Moses was to be joined with faith in Christ, as necessary to salvation, then believers might have avoided many of the sufferings they underwent. The first beginnings of such leaven should be opposed. And assuredly those who persist in disturbing the church of Christ must bear their judgment.

Matthew Henry: Gal 5:1-12

In the former part of this chapter the apostle cautions the Galatians to take heed of the judaizing teachers, who endeavoured to bring them back under the bondage of the law. He had been arguing against them before, and had largely shown how contrary the principles and spirit of those teachers were to the spirit of the gospel; and now this is as it were the general inference or application of all that discourse. Since it appeared by what had been said that we can be justified only by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the righteousness of the law, and that the law of Moses was no longer in force, nor Christians under any obligation to submit to it, therefore he would have them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and not to be again entangled with the yoke of bondage. Here observe, 1. Under the gospel we are enfranchised, we are brought into a state of liberty, wherein we are freed from the yoke of the ceremonial law and from the curse of the moral law; so that we are no longer tied to the observance of the one, nor tied up to the rigour of the other, which curses every one that continues not in all things written therein to do them, Gal 3:10. 2. We owe this liberty to Jesus Christ. It is he who has made us free; by his merits he has satisfied the demands of the broken law, and by his authority as a king he has discharged us from the obligation of those carnal ordinances which were imposed on the Jews. And, 3. It is therefore our duty to stand fast in this liberty, constantly and faithfully to adhere to the gospel and to the liberty of it, and not to suffer ourselves, upon any consideration, to be again entangled in the yoke of bondage, nor persuaded to return back to the law of Moses. This is the general caution or exhortation, which in the following verses the apostle enforces by several reasons or arguments. As,

I. That their submitting to circumcision, and depending on the works of the law for righteousness, were an implicit contradiction of their faith as Christians and a forfeiture of all their advantages by Jesus Christ, Gal 5:2-4. And here we may observe, 1. With what solemnity the apostle asserts and declares this: Behold, I Paul say unto you (Gal 5:2), and he repeats it (Gal 5:3), I testify unto you; as it he had said, "I, who have proved myself an apostle of Christ, and to have received my authority and instructions from him, do declare, and am ready to pawn my credit and reputation upon it, that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing, etc.,"wherein he shows that what he was now saying was not only a matter of great importance, but what might be most assuredly depended on. He was so far from being a preacher of circumcision (as some might report him to be) that he looked upon it as a matter of the greatest consequence that they did not submit to it. 2. What it is which he so solemnly, and with so much assurance, declares; it is that, if they were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing, etc. We are not to suppose that it is mere circumcision which the apostle is here speaking of, or that it was his design to say that none who are circumcised could have any benefit by Christ; for all the Old Testament saints had been circumcised, and he himself had consented to the circumcising of Timothy. But he is to be understood as speaking of circumcision in the sense in which the judaizing teachers imposed it, who taught that except they were circumcised, and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved, Act 15:1. That this is his meaning appears from Gal 5:4, where he expresses the same thing by their being justified by the law, or seeking justification by the works of it. Now in this case, if they submitted to circumcision in this sense, he declares that Christ would profit them nothing, that they were debtors to do the whole law, that Christ had become of no effect to them, and that they were fallen from grace. From all these expressions it appears that thereby they renounced that way of justification which God had established; yea, that they laid themselves under an impossibility of being justified in his sight, for they became debtors to do the whole law, which required such an obedience as they were not capable of performing, and denounced a curse against those who failed in it, and therefore condemned, but could not justify them; and, consequently, that having thus revolted from Christ, and built their hopes upon the law, Christ would profit them nothing, nor be of any effect to them. Thus, as by being circumcised they renounced their Christianity, so they cut themselves off from all advantage by Christ; and therefore there was the greatest reason why they should stedfastly adhere to that doctrine which they had embraced, and not suffer themselves to be brought under this yoke of bondage. Note, (1.) Though Jesus Christ is able to save to the uttermost, yet there are multitudes whom he will profit nothing. (2.) All those who seek to be justified by the law do thereby render Christ of no effect to them. By building their hopes on the works of the law, they forfeit all their hopes from him; for he will not be the Saviour of any who will not own and rely upon him as their only Saviour.

II. To persuade them to stedfastness in the doctrine and liberty of the gospel, he sets before them his own example, and that of other Jews who had embraced the Christian religion, and acquaints them what their hopes were, namely, That through the Spirit they were waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith. Though they were Jews by nature, and had been bred up under the law, yet being, through the Spirit, brought to the knowledge of Christ, they had renounced all dependence on the works of the law, and looked for justification and salvation only by faith in him; and therefore it must needs be the greatest folly in those who had never been under the law to suffer themselves to be brought into subjection to it, and to found their hopes upon the works of it. Here we may observe, 1. What it is that Christians are waiting for: it is the hope of righteousness, by which we are chiefly to understand the happiness of the other world. This is called the hope of Christians, as it is the great object of their hope, which they are above every thing else desiring and pursuing; and the hope of righteousness, as their hopes of it are founded on righteousness, not their own, but that of our Lord Jesus: for, though a life of righteousness is the way that leads to this happiness, yet it is the righteousness of Christ alone which has procured it for us, and on account of which we can expect to be brought to the possession of it. 2. How they hope to obtain this happiness, namely, by faith, that is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law, or any thing they can do to deserve it, but only by faith, receiving and relying upon him as the Lord our righteousness. It is in this way only that they expect either to be entitled to it here or possessed of it hereafter. And, 3. Whence it is that they are thus waiting for the hope of righteousness: it is through the Spirit. Herein they act under the direction and influence of the Holy Spirit; it is under his conduct, and by his assistance, that they are both persuaded and enabled to believe on Christ, and to look for the hope of righteousness through him. When the apostle thus represents the case of Christians, it is implied that if they expected to be justified and saved in any other way they were likely to meet with a disappointment, and therefore that they were greatly concerned to adhere to the doctrine of the gospel which they had embraced.

III. He argues from the nature and design of the Christian institution, which was to abolish the difference between Jew and Gentile, and to establish faith in Christ as the way of our acceptance with God. He tells them (Gal 5:6) that in Christ Jesus, or under the gospel dispensation, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision. Though, while the legal state lasted, there was a difference put between Jew and Greek, between those who were and those who were not circumcised, the former being admitted to those privileges of the church of God from which the other were excluded, yet it was otherwise in the gospel state: Christ, who is the end of the law, having come, now it was neither here nor there whether a man were circumcised or uncircumcised; he was neither the better for the one nor the worse for the other, nor would either the one or the other recommend him to God; and therefore as their judaizing teachers were very unreasonable in imposing circumcision upon them, and obliging them to observe the law of Moses, so they must needs be very unwise in submitting to them herein. But, though he assures them that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision would avail to their acceptance with God, yet he informs them what would do so, and that is faith, which worketh by love: such a faith in Christ as discovers itself to be true and genuine by a sincere love to God and our neighbour. If they had this, it mattered not whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, but without it nothing else would stand them in any stead. Note, 1. No external privileges nor profession will avail to our acceptance with God, without a sincere faith in our Lord Jesus. 2. Faith, where it is true, is a working grace: it works by love, love to God and love to our brethren; and faith, thus working by love, is all in all in our Christianity.

IV. To recover them from their backslidings, and engage them to greater stedfastness for the future, he puts them in mind of their good beginnings, and calls upon them to consider whence it was that they were so much altered from what they had been, Gal 5:7.

1. He tells them that they did run well; at their first setting out in Christianity they had behaved themselves very commendably, they had readily embraced the Christian religion, and discovered a becoming zeal in the ways and work of it; as in their baptism they were devoted to God, and had declared themselves the disciples of Christ, so their behaviour was agreeable to their character and profession. Note, (1.) The life of a Christian is a race, wherein he must run, and hold on, if he would obtain the prize. (2.) It is not enough that we run in this race, by a profession of Christianity, but we must run well, by living up to that profession. Thus these Christians had done for awhile, but they had been obstructed in their progress, and were either turned out of the way or at least made to flag and falter in it. Therefore,

2. He asks them, and calls upon them to ask themselves, Who did hinder you? How came it to pass that they did not hold on in the way wherein they had begun to run so well? He very well knew who they were, and what it was that hindered them; but he would have them to put the question to themselves, and seriously consider whether they had any good reason to hearken to those who gave them this disturbance, and whether what they offered was sufficient to justify them in their present conduct. Note, (1.) Many who set out fair in religion, and run well for awhile - run within the bounds appointed for the race, and run with zeal and alacrity too-are yet by some means or other hindered in their progress, or turned out of the way. (2.) It concerns those who have run well, but now begin either to turn out of the way or to tire in it, to enquire what it is that hinders them. Young converts must expect that Satan will be laying stumbling blocks in their way, and doing all he can to divert them from the course they are in; but, whenever they find themselves in danger of being turned out of it, they would do well to consider who it is that hinders them. Whoever they were that hindered these Christians, the apostle tells them that by hearkening to them they were kept from obeying the truth, and were thereby in danger of losing the benefit of what they had done in religion. The gospel which he had preached to them, and which they had embraced and professed, he assures them was the truth; it was therein only that the true way of justification and salvation was fully discovered, and, in order to their enjoying the advantage of it, it was necessary that they should obey it, that they should firmly adhere to it, and continue to govern their lives and hopes according to the directions of it. If therefore they should suffer themselves to be drawn away from it they must needs be guilty of the greatest weakness and folly. Note, [1.] The truth is not only to be believed, but to be obeyed, to be received not only in the light of it, but in the love and power of it. [2.] Those do not rightly obey the truth, who do not stedfastly adhere to it. [3.] There is the same reason for our obeying the truth that there was for our embracing it: and therefore those act very unreasonably who, when they have begun to run well in the Christian race, suffer themselves to be hindered, so as not to persevere in it.

V. He argues for their stedfastness in the faith and liberty of the gospel from the ill rise of that persuasion whereby they were drawn away from it (Gal 5:8): This persuasion, says he, cometh not of him that calleth you. The opinion or persuasion of which the apostle here speaks was no doubt that of the necessity of their being circumcised, and keeping the law of Moses, or of their mixing the works of the law with faith in Christ in the business of justification. This was what the judaizing teachers endeavoured to impose upon them, and what they had too easily fallen into. To convince them of their folly herein, he tells them that this persuasion did not come of him that called them, that is, either of God, by whose authority the gospel had been preached to them and they had been called into the fellowship of it, or of the apostle himself, who had been employed as the instrument of calling them hereunto. It could not come from God, for it was contrary to that way of justification and salvation which he had established; nor could they have received it from Paul himself; for, whatever some might pretend, he had all along been an opposer and not a preacher of circumcision, and, if in any instance he had submitted to it for the sake of peace, yet he had never pressed the use of it upon Christians, much less imposed it upon them as necessary to salvation. Since then this persuasion did not come of him that had called them, he leaves them to judge whence it must arise, and sufficiently intimates that it could be owing to none but Satan and his instruments, who by this means were endeavouring to overthrow their faith and obstruct the progress of the gospel, and therefore that the Galatians had every reason to reject it, and to continue stedfast in the truth which they had before embraced. Note, 1. In order to our judging aright of the different persuasions in religion which there are among Christians, it concerns us to enquire whether they come of him that calleth us, whether or no they are founded upon the authority of Christ and his apostles. 2. If, upon enquiry, they appear to have no such foundation, how forward soever others may be to impose them upon us, we should by no means submit to them, but reject them.

VI. The danger there was of the spreading of this infection, and the ill influence it might have upon others, are a further argument which the apostle urges against their complying with their false teachers in what they would impose on them. It is possible that, to extenuate their fault, they might be ready to say that there were but few of those teachers among them who endeavoured to draw them into this persuasion and practice, or that they were only some smaller matters wherein they complied with them - that though they submitted to be circumcised, and to observe some few rites of the Jewish laws, yet they had by no means renounced their Christianity and gone over to Judaism. Or, suppose their complying thus far was as faulty as he could represent it, yet perhaps they might further say that there were but few among them who had done so, and therefore he needed not be so much concerned about it. Now, to obviate such pretences as these, and to convince them that there was more danger in it than they were aware of, he tells them (Gal 5:9) that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump - that the whole lump of Christianity may be tainted and corrupted by one such erroneous principle, or that the whole lump of the Christian society may be infected by one member of it, and therefore that they were greatly concerned not to yield in this single instance, or, if any had done so, to endeavour by all proper methods to purge out the infection from among them. Note, It is dangerous for Christian churches to encourage those among them who entertain, especially who set themselves to propagate, destructive errors. This was the case here. The doctrine which the false teachers were industrious to spread, and which some in these churches had been drawn into, was subversive of Christianity itself, as the apostle had before shown; and therefore, though the number either of the one or the other of these might be but small, yet, considering the fatal tendency of it and the corruption of human nature, whereby others were too much disposed to be infected with it, he would not have them on that account to be easy and unconcerned, but remember that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. If these were indulged the contagion might soon spread further and wider; and, if they suffered themselves to be imposed upon in this instance, it might soon issue in the utter ruin of the truth and liberty of the gospel.

VII. That he might conciliate the greater regard to what he had said, he expresses the hopes he had concerning them (Gal 5:10): I have confidence in you, says he, through the Lord, that you will be none otherwise minded. Though he had many fears and doubts about them (which was the occasion of his using so much plainness and freedom with them), yet he hoped that through the blessing of God upon what he had written they might be brought to be of the same mind with him, and to own and abide by that truth and that liberty of the gospel which he had preached to them, and was now endeavouring to confirm them in. Herein he teaches us that we ought to hope the best even of those concerning whom we have cause to fear the worst. That they might be the less offended at the reproofs he had given them for their unstedfastness in the faith, he lays the blame of it more upon others than themselves; for he adds, But he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. He was sensible that there were some that troubled them, and would pervert the gospel of Christ (as Gal 1:7), and possibly he may point to some one particular man who was more busy and forward than others, and might be the chief instrument of the disorder that was among them; and to this he imputes their defection or inconstancy more than to any thing in themselves. This may give us occasion to observe that, in reproving sin and error, we should always distinguish between the leaders and the led, such as set themselves to draw others thereinto and such as are drawn aside by them. Thus the apostle softens and alleviates the fault of these Christians, even while he is reproving them, that he might the better persuade them to return to, and stand fast in, the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free: but as for him or those that troubled them, whoever he or they were, he declares they should bear their judgment, he did not doubt but God would deal with them according to their deserts, and out of his just indignation against them, as enemies of Christ and his church, he wishes that they were even cut off - not cut off from Christ and all hopes of salvation by him, but cut off by the censures of the church, which ought to witness against those teachers who thus corrupted the purity of the gospel. Those, whether ministers or others, who set themselves to overthrow the faith of the gospel, and disturb the peace of Christians, do thereby forfeit the privileges of Christian communion and deserve to be cut off from them.

VIII. To dissuade these Christians from hearkening to their judaizing teachers, and to recover them from the ill impressions they had made upon them, he represents them as men who had used very base and disingenuous methods to compass their designs, for they had misrepresented him, that they might the more easily gain their ends upon them. That which they were endeavouring was to bring them to submit to circumcision, and to mix Judaism with their Christianity; and, the better to accomplish this design, they had given out among them that Paul himself was a preacher of circumcision: for when he says (Gal 5:11), And I brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, it plainly appears that they had reported him to have done so, and that they had made use of this as an argument to prevail with the Galatians to submit to it. It is probable that they grounded this report upon his having circumcised Timothy, Act 16:3. But, though for good reasons he had yielded to circumcision in that instance, yet that he was a preacher of it, and especially in that sense wherein they imposed it, he utterly denies. To prove the injustice of that charge upon him, he offers such arguments as, if they would allow themselves to consider, could not fail to convince them of it. 1. If he would have preached circumcision, he might have avoided persecution. If I yet preach circumcision, says he, why do I yet suffer persecution? It was evident, and they could not but be sensible of it, that he was hated and persecuted by the Jews; but what account could be given of this their behaviour towards him, if he had so far symbolized with them as to preach up circumcision, and the observance of the law of Moses, as necessary to salvation? This was the great point they were contending for; and, if he had fallen in with them herein, instead of being exposed to their rage he might have been received into their favour. When therefore he was suffering persecution from them, this was a plain evidence that he had not complied with them; yea, that he was so far from preaching the doctrine he was charged with, that, rather than do so, he was willing to expose himself to the greatest hazards. 2. If he had yielded to the Jews herein, then would the offence of the cross have ceased. They would not have taken so much offence against the doctrine of Christianity as they did, nor would he and others have been exposed to so much suffering on the account of it as they were. He informs us (1Co 1:23) that the preaching of the cross of Christ (or the doctrine of justification and salvation only by faith in Christ crucified) was to the Jews a stumbling-block. That which they were most offended at in Christianity was, that thereby circumcision, and the whole frame of the legal administration, were set aside, as no longer in force. This raised their greatest outcries against it, and stirred them up to oppose and persecute the professors of it. Now if Paul and others could have given into this opinion, that circumcision was still to be retained, and the observance of the law of Moses joined with faith in Christ as necessary to salvation, then their offence against it would have been in a great measure removed, and they might have avoided the sufferings they underwent for the sake of it. But though others, and particularly those who were so forward to asperse him as a preacher of this doctrine, could easily come into it, yet so could not he. He rather chose to hazard his ease and credit, yea his very life itself, than thus to corrupt the truth and give up the liberty of the gospel. Hence it was that the Jews continued to be so much offended against Christianity, and against him as the preacher of it. Thus the apostle clears himself from the unjust reproach which his enemies had cast upon him, and at the same time shows how little regard was due to those men who could treat him in such an injurious manner, and how much reason he had to wish that they were even cut off.

Barclay: Gal 5:1-12

It was Paul's position that the way of grace and the way of law were mutually exclusive. The way of law makes salvation dependent on human achievement; the man who takes the way of grace simply casts himself and his sin upon the mercy of God. Paul went on to argue that if you accepted circumcision, that is to say, if you accepted one part of the law, logically you had to accept the whole law.

Suppose a man desires to become a naturalized subject of a country and carefully carries out all the rules and regulations of that country as they affect naturalization. He cannot stop there but is bound to accept all the other rules and regulations as well. So Paul argued that if a man were circumcised he had put himself under an obligation to the whole law to which circumcision was the introduction; and, if he took that way, he had automatically turned his back on the way of grace, and, as far as he was concerned, Christ might never have died.

To Paul all that mattered was faith which works through love. That is just another way of saying that the essence of Christianity is not law but a personal relationship to Jesus Christ. The Christian's faith is founded not on a book but on a person; its dynamic is not obedience to any law but love to Jesus Christ.

Once, the Galatians had known that, but now they were turning back to the law. "A little leaven," said Paul, "leavens the whole lump." For the Jew leaven nearly always stood for evil influence. What Paul is saying is, "This legalistic movement may not have gone very far yet, but you must root it out before it destroys your whole religion."

Paul ends with a very blunt saying. Galatia was near Phrygia and the great worship of that part of the world was of Cybele. It was the practice that priests and really devout worshippers of Cybele mutilated themselves by castration. Paul says, "If you go on in this way, of which circumcision is the beginning, you might as well end up by castrating yourselves like these heathen priests." It is a grim illustration at which a polite society raises its eyebrows, but it would be intensely real to the Galatians who knew all about the priests of Cybele.

Constable: Gal 5:1--6:11

IV. PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO CHRISTIAN LIVING 5:1--6:10

Paul moved next from theology (chs. 3-4) to ethics, from doctrine to exhortation.

Constable: Gal 5:1-26

A. Balance in the Christian life ch. 5

Having ruled out the Mosaic Law as a regulatory standard for Christian behavior, Paul proceeded to explain how God does lead us. He did this by first discussing two extremes and then the proper middle road. The indwelling Holy Spirit now lead us, but we must be careful to follow His leading.

Constable: Gal 5:1-12

1. Living without the Law 5:1-12

The apostle warned his readers not to think that they could satisfy the demands of the Mosaic Law by obeying only a few of its commands. Only complete compliance satisfies its demands.

5:1 Paul's readers were in danger of returning to slavery, not to the slavery of their heathen sins as before but to the slavery of the Mosaic Law. The false teachers were evidently telling them that they needed to submit to circumcision to be truly acceptable to God.

"Before plunging into this third section of his letter, Paul interjects a verse that is at once a summary of all that has gone before and a transition to what follows. It is, in fact, the key verse of the entire Epistle. Because of the nature of the true gospel and of the work of Christ on his behalf, the believer is now to turn away from anything that smacks of legalism and instead rest in Christ's triumphant work for him and live in the power of Christ's Spirit. . . . The appeal is for an obstinate perseverance in freedom as the only proper response to an attempt to bring Christians once more under legalism."¹⁶¹

In what sense has God liberated Christians from the "yoke of slavery" (v. 1) that is the Mosaic Law (cf. Rom. 10:4; 2 Cor. 3:7-11; Heb. 7:12; Gal. 3:24)?

Calvin and many reformed theologians have answered this question this way. They have said the ceremonial laws (e.g., animal sacrifices, dietary restrictions, feast days, etc.) are no longer binding on us because of the death of Christ. Nevertheless the moral laws (the Ten Commandments) are still binding. God has done away with the moral laws only in the sense that they no longer condemn us (Rom. 8:11).¹⁶² The problem with this explanation is that it makes a distinction between two parts of the Law that the text does not make. The text simply states that Christ is the end of "the Law" (Rom. 10:4), not the ceremonial part of the Law. Furthermore if the Ten Commandments are all still binding on us, why have Christians throughout history (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 16:2) met to worship on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath? Some reformed theologians, following Calvin, believe that God abolished Sabbath worship along with the ceremonial laws.¹⁶³ This seems somewhat inconsistent. Others, following the Westminster Confession, regard Sunday worship as a continuation of Sabbath worship.¹⁶⁴ Nevertheless it is, of course, very different.

Dispensational theologians have suggested another answer to this question that to me seems more consistent with what Scripture says. They say that God did away with the Mosaic Law completely, both the ceremonial and the moral parts. He terminated it as a code and has replaced it with a new code, "the Law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). Some commandments in the Law of Christ are the same as those in the Law of Moses (e.g., nine of the Ten Commandments, excluding the command to observe the Sabbath day). God-given codes of laws that governed people's behavior existed before God gave the Law of Moses (e.g., Gen. 1:28-30; 2:16-17; 3:14-19; 9:1-17). God incorporated some specific commands from these former codes into the Law of Christ even though they were not part of the Law of Moses (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:3; cf. Gen. 9:3). He also incorporated nine of the Ten Commandments from the Mosaic Code.

"May this procedure not be likened to the various codes in a household with growing children? At different stages of maturity new codes are instituted, but some of the same commandments appear often. To say that the former code is done away and all its commandments is no contradiction. It is as natural as growing up. So it is with the Mosaic Law and the law of Christ."¹⁶⁵

"The yoke' was used in current Jewish parlance in an honorable sense for the obligation to keep the law of Moses, and the Judaizers may well have urged the Galatians to take the yoke of the law' upon themselves. But Paul bluntly points out that the ordinances of the law as demanded by the Judaizers constitute a slave's yoke, so that he uses the word in the bad sense of an imposed burden, like slavery (cf. Acts 15:10; 1 Tim. 6:1)."¹⁶⁶

5:2 Paul now began to attack the Judaizers' teaching about circumcision. Insistence on circumcision was a central feature of the false gospel that the Judaizers were promoting. It was the practice around which the whole controversy swirled.

5:3-4 The Galatians would be obligating themselves to obey the whole Mosaic Code if they allowed the false teachers to circumcise them.¹⁶⁷ Their confidence in circumcision would reveal confidence in their own ability to earn salvation by obeying the Law. This legal approach to salvation would separate them from Christ since what He did was provide salvation as a gift. They would fall away from the grace method of salvation if they chose the law method.¹⁶⁸ In view of the many scriptural promises that God never withdraws His gift of salvation, verse 4 cannot mean the readers had lost their salvation (e.g., John 1:12; 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:47; 10:28-29; et al.).

The legalists appear to have been claiming that circumcision was a necessary step in the process by which people become acceptable to God. These steps from their viewpoint were faith in Christ, reception of the Spirit, and circumcision of the flesh. Paul argued that anyone who submits to circumcision to gain acceptance with God really believes in salvation by law-keeping. If one believes in law-keeping for salvation, he must keep the whole Law, not just the requirement of circumcision. That is impossible for sinners to do. Rather than gaining acceptance with God circumcision would be what separated him from Christ.

5:5-6 Paul's approach, and the one he tried to persuade the Galatians to adopt, was simply to trust God to deliver all that we anticipate in the future because we are now righteous (justified).¹⁶⁹ This hope includes our ultimate glorification (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Pet. 1:3-4, 13). We do not work for this, but we wait for it.¹⁷⁰ God does not care if a Christian has a circumcised body or not. What does matter is that we trust God because we love Him. Note that in these verses Paul united the three basic Christian virtues: faith, hope, and love. The Holy Spirit makes all three possible.

"We must guard against the misunderstanding current especially in Catholic theology (though Protestantism is far from exempt) that only faith made perfect in love leads to justification. This represents a serious distortion of the relationship between faith, love, and justification. In speaking of justification Paul never talks of faith and love, but only of faith as receiving. Love is not therefore an additional prerequisite for receiving salvation, nor is it properly an essential trait of faith; on the contrary, faith animates the love in which it works."¹⁷¹

5:7-10 The false teachers had bumped Paul's readers as they ran the Christian race. God had not led the ones who interfered with them to do so. The "leaven" in Paul's proverb (v. 9) could refer to the error in the church, the leading false teacher in their midst (the bad apple in the barrel, cf. v. 10), and the single requirement of circumcision already mentioned (vv. 2-3). Paul was confident that the Galatians would side with him and that they or God would judge the false teacher or teachers. "Whoever he is" may allude to the high standing of the false teacher in the Galatians' minds rather than expressing Paul's ignorance about his identity.¹⁷²

5:11 Evidently some people were saying Paul advocated circumcision. He may have preached it before his Damascus road conversion, but since then he had stopped. Probably Paul meant that the accusation of his critics that he preached circumcision when it suited him was not true (cf. 1 Cor. 7:18).¹⁷³ Paul thought it wise for some Christians, such as Timothy, to undergo circumcision for the sake of effective ministry (Acts 16:3). However, he did not teach that it was necessary for salvation.

Paul's point here was that if he taught circumcision was necessary for salvation the Judaizers would not have persecuted him. If people need circumcision, they do not need the cross of Christ. The legalists opposed Paul's preaching of the Cross because it implied that people are unable to please God themselves.

"The skandalon [stumbling block] of the cross, for Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), lay in the curse which it involved for one who was hanged on it (cf. 3:13). That one who died such a death should be proclaimed as Lord and Christ was intolerable. In the eyes of Gentiles the idea that salvation depended on one who had neither the wit nor the power to save himself from so disreputable a death was the height of folly. But there is a more general skandalon attached to the cross, one of which Paul is probably thinking here: it cuts the ground from under every thought of personal achievement or merit where God's salvation is in view. To be shut up to receiving salvation from the crucified one, if it is to be received at all, is an affront to all notions of proper self-pride and self-help--and for many people this remains a major stumbling-block in the gospel of Christ crucified. If I myself can make some small contribution, something even so small as the acceptance of circumcision, then my self-esteem is uninjured."¹⁷⁴

Paul's gospel was a stumbling block for two reasons: it presented a crucified Messiah and it advocated a way of salvation apart from circumcision and the Law.

5:12 The Judaizers had gone too far with circumcision. Paul's wish that the Judaizers who were so keen on circumcision would mutilate (i.e., castrate) themselves reflects his deep feelings about the seriousness of their heresy. If God granted Paul's wish, they could not produce converts, figuratively speaking. Priests of the Cybele cult in nearby Phrygia practiced castration.¹⁷⁵ Paul regarded his legalistic rivals as no better than pagan priests.

". . . for Paul to compare the ancient Jewish rite of circumcision to pagan practices even in this way is startling. For one thing, it puts the efforts of the Judaizers to have the Gentiles circumcised on the same level as abhorred pagan practices. For another, it links their desire for circumcision to that which even in Judaism disbarred one from the congregation of the Lord (Deut 23:1)."¹⁷⁶

Thus Paul's desire for the false teachers seems to have been that they would cut themselves off from the company of believers.¹⁷⁷

"Most often Galatians is viewed as the great document of justification by faith. What Christians all too often fail to realize is that in reality it is a document that sets out a Christ-centered lifestyle--one that stands in opposition to both nomism and libertinism. Sadly, though applauding justification by faith, Christians frequently renounce their freedom in Christ by espousing either nomism or libertinism, and sometimes (like the Galatians) both. So Paul's letter to the Galatians, though directly relevant to the Galatian situation, speaks also to our situation today."¹⁷⁸

College: Gal 5:1-26

GALATIANS 5

III. APPLICATION:

LIVING FOR FREEDOM (5:1-6:18)

A. FREEDOM OR A YOKE? (5:1-6)

¹ It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. ² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.

Paul is concerned that the Galatian Christians not return to any form of slavery to "the weak and miserable principles" (4:9) they formerly served. What good is it to be set free, if one then reverts to being a slave? To be set free "for freedom" emphasizes the permanency of the new status.

Deissmann records that the phrase "for freedom" was extremely well known, found in numerous documents for the freeing of slaves. The procedure called for a slave to save up enough money, and then to have the local temple use that money to buy him from the owner. The slave was then the property of the god, and no man could lay any claim against him. On the wall of the temple it would be recorded that "for freedom" the god had purchased the slave. An inscription on the wall at Delphi dating back to 200-199 B.C. illustrates this:

Date. Apollo the Pythian bought from Sosibius of Amphissa, for freedom , a female slave, whose name is Nicaea, by race a Roman, with a price of three minae of silver and a half-mina. Former seller according to the law: Eumnastus of Amphissa. The price he hath received. The purchase, however, Nicaea hath committed unto Apollo, for freedom .

An alternative translation of the dative th/' ejleuqeriva/ (tç eleutheria ) is "with freedom." Bruce favors this understanding of the text, explaining the freedom as the liberty held out in the gospel. "It is with this liberty that Christ has liberated his people." Even if this translation is accepted, however, verse 13 is specifically "for freedom," and the symbolism of the freed slave would apply there.

Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Paul frequently tells his readers to "stand," especially in the face of adversity. The Philippians, for instance, were to "stand firm" as they contended together for the faith of the gospel (1:27) and the Ephesians were to "stand their ground" when the day of evil came (6:13).

It is a tragedy of the modern church that sometimes people who are purchased out of slavery to sin turn right around and volunteer themselves to another form of slavery - being dominated by cult overlords. This "out of the frying pan, into the fire" predicament of the Galatians is highlighted by Paul's use of the word "again" in reference to their yoke of bondage.

In the immediate context of the Galatian situation, the false teachers who held out the new yoke of slavery were the advocates of the law. It was especially appropriate for Paul to use the term "yoke" in this connection, for the rabbis had frequently chosen to call the obligation to keep the law of Moses "the yoke of the law."

5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you

Having established his apostolic authority in chapters 1 and 2, Paul reminds his readers who it is that makes the pronouncement. The Greek could be translated literally, "Behold! I myself, Paul, I say to you. . . ." It is not some obscure teacher who speaks, or just another insignificant opinion to which they listen. It is Paul an apostle, the only apostle whom they know firsthand, who gives the full weight of his personal endorsement to the proposition which follows.

that if you let yourselves be circumcised,

The present tense of the verb indicates that Paul is not making any attempt to exclude from God's family someone who was circumcised at some time in the past. It is the present reliance on being circumcised that is the fault. To the church at large Paul says, "If you go on having yourselves circumcised," you are relying on a false premise. This dependence on circumcision must stop!

Christ will be of no value to you at all.

Christ will "profit nothing" to those whose trust is in their own work of keeping laws such as circumcision. It is not merely a matter of adding an innocuous "extra" to the gospel; it is a matter of changing it to no gospel at all (1:6-7). Why is this? It is because the whole issue of faith and trust is at stake. To have faith in Jesus Christ is to trust his sacrifice to be adequate in God's eyes to save the sinner. To believe that his sacrifice is in any way deficient is not to trust - not to believe.

When my son was a little boy I took him shopping to buy a gift for his mother. After selecting a colorful sweater, he and I went to pay the clerk. He stuffed his little hands down into his jeans pockets and came up with two crumpled dollar bills. He did the best he could, but then I had to make up the difference. For the legalist, there was a time when God's little Son went to the cross to buy us all salvation from sin. He stretched out his hands, shed his blood, and did the best he could. But since his sacrifice was too small, the legalist reasons, we must now make up the difference, earning "points" to get into God's favor by keeping his laws. Paul would vigorously object. To trust Christ, as aided by myself, is not really to trust Christ at all!

5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised

Paul is emphatic here as he "solemnly testifies again" to the truth of the doctrine he has just established. The men who go on getting themselves circumcised (present tense as in the previous verse) are abandoning Christ. Surprisingly, verses 2 and 3 are the first direct references to circumcision since chapter two. The ritual had come to be the focal point of what the Judaizers were trying to impose upon the Gentile Christians, and all the earlier arguments against the Law also stand against circumcision.

that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Those who have no real trust in Christ's sacrifice and add circumcision are taking on more than they realize. In the law of Moses circumcision represented membership in the covenant people and acceptance of the covenant obligations. Circumcision ushered a Gentile into the covenant of law (e.g. Gen 17:27). If the Gentile Christian men in Galatia solemnly took on the necessity of circumcision as a ritual obligation, they were by the same act pledging their allegiance to the whole law.

The law of Moses was never presented as a legal smorgasbord from which its followers could make their selections according to personal preference. As Paul has already developed in 3:10 (based on Deut 27:26), the law pronounced a curse on those who did not uphold all the commands, all the time. And should the Galatians attempt to keep all the law, succeeding even as well as Paul himself had (Phil 3:6), they would still find no salvation there (Ps 143:2, as developed in Gal 2:16).

5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ;

The Greek says literally "you who are justifying yourselves by law." But they were like the men at Babel who were "building a tower to reach heaven" (Gen 11:1-9). Although they did not know it, what they were doing could not be successfully done. And worse, their attempt to do it was the ultimate insult to God. (The NIV "trying to be justified" is an interpretive translation, but seems to be a fair and correct interpretation.)

Submitting to circumcision has been seen to produce two tragic results: making the sacrifice of Christ worthless (v. 2) and putting the person squarely under the demands of the law (v. 3). Paul now elaborates on the first result, showing that such a person has made himself "alienated from Christ" and has "fallen away from grace." To be "alienated" (kathrghvqhte , katçrgçthçte ) meant that a relationship was nullified. Compare the use of the same word in Rom 7:2-6, where death has nullified a woman's former relation with her husband and has canceled any ongoing obligation to the law which had governed that marriage. By their circumcision, then, the Galatians were not only cutting off a piece of their anatomy, they were also cutting off Christ! (Cf. the RSV translation "severed from Christ.")

you have fallen away from grace.

How different from the glad declaration to the Romans about "this grace in which we now stand" (Rom 5:2)! The Galatians who were "building their tower to heaven" had jettisoned God's grace as inadequate and unnecessary.

Paul uses a slightly different word for "fall away" (ejkpivptw , ekpiptô ) than the word used in Heb 6:6 (parapivptw , parapiptô ). Both words were found in everyday language, and display this interesting difference. The word in Galatians was a technical term in nautical language, meaning "to drift off course." The word in Hebrews is often found with the meaning "lost." While a boat that is "off course" will not reach its destination unless it make a correction, a boat that is "lost" has no basis on which to make corrections. This would seem to indicate that the predicament of the Galatians was correctable, while in Hebrews it is "impossible" (Heb 6:4).

In the perennial arguments over whether it is possible for a Christian to "fall away from grace," this verse is a sword that cuts both ways. On the one hand, it clearly is possible for a Christian who has believed and received the Holy Spirit (3:2) to be later misled and be "alienated from Christ" and "fall away from grace." On the other hand, it must be noted that the way such people fall away is not by inadequate attention to keeping all God's rules, but by inadequate reliance upon grace. While modern-day Calvinists are defeated by the first slice of this verse, modern-day legalists are defeated by the second.

5:5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.

It is "by faith" that the peril of apostasy is avoided. "Falling away" is not avoided by deciding it could never happen (Calvinists) nor by trying harder to earn a safer place in God's favor (legalists). Paul and those who like Isaac are children of promise do not place their trust in their own deeds of righteousness. Instead, they place their hope in God and eagerly await a righteousness "not of their own, not based on law" (Phil 3:9). Legalists, on the other hand, think they can nail down their claim on salvation by works, thereby leaving nothing to shaky, unstable things like faith, hope, and trust.

The verb translated "eagerly await" (ajpekdecovmeqa , apekdechometha ) has an interesting group of direct objects in the New Testament. Christians eagerly await a Savior (Phil 3:20), Christ (Heb 9:28), adoption and redemption (Rom 8:23), and the revealing of the sons of God (Rom 8:19).

The Spirit of God helps to keep this hope alive. Christians are able to "rejoice in hope" (Rom 5:2), and this hope "does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us" (Rom 5:5).

5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

Shocking as it may have seemed to people depending on the law for access into God's favor, circumcision just didn't matter anymore. To be circumcised - or to refuse to be circumcised - was now a matter of indifference with God. To the veteran legalist it was unthinkable that something as important as circumcision simply didn't matter to God. Either a man must be circumcised, or a man must not! How could God say it didn't matter, that either way was fine?

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

It must not be overlooked that Paul does not say that the circumcision of the old covenant has been replaced by baptism in the new covenant. Rather, for the Christian the new counterpart of circumcision is faith. Baptism, of course, is conjoined with faith as a person puts on Christ (3:27), but the central focus of the new covenant is on the inner man.

"Faith is viewed as the root, love as the fruit," notes Bruce. "The faith by which believers are justified is the faith which operates through love." Faith becomes operative, expressing itself or working (Greek ejnergoumevnh , energoumenç , "energizing itself") through love. This truth goes a long way toward resolving the conflict Martin Luther noted between Paul and James. For James, faith that has no works is dead and useless (James 2:26). For Paul, faith must also be a working faith. Neither would accept an idle faith; neither would suppose that a man can earn his salvation by meritorious works. "Justification by faith and life in the Spirit are like two sides of one coin; neither is present without the other."

B. THE YEAST OF THE AGITATORS (5:7-12)

⁷ You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? ⁸ That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. ⁹"A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." ¹⁰ I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. ¹¹ Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. ¹² As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

5:7 You were running a good race.

The athletic metaphor was a favorite way of speaking for Paul. He spoke of his own ministry as "running my race" (2:2), and also used the imagery of athletic competition in Acts 20:24; 1 Cor 9:26; and 2 Tim 4:7. Now the figure is applied to the Galatians. Like runners in a marathon they had been running well when Paul had last seen them. They were headed in the right direction and making good progress. At that point Paul had every right to think they would finish in victory.

Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?

The original usage of "cut in" (ejnevkoyen , enekopsen ) was to chop up a road before an advancing army to impede their progress. Later the word seems to have been used also in an athletic context, as one runner might "cut in on" another runner, making that runner break stride and even fall.

"Obeying" (peivqesqai , peithesthai ) first means to be "persuaded" by something, then to act in accordance with it. Thus the truth of the gospel (2:5, 14) is not merely to be believed; it is also to be obeyed.

5:8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you.

The persuasion (peismonhv , peismonç ) is closely tied to the obeying, being derived from the same Greek root. This is the only use of the noun form in the New Testament.

5:9 "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough."

This saying, as punctuated by the NIV, appears to have been a common proverb of the time. Paul also used it in 1 Cor 5:6, in that place referring to the practice of removing all leaven from a house in preparation for Passover. Jesus referred to leaven both in a positive sense (Matt 13:33 = Luke 13:21), and in a negative sense (Matt 16:6 = Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1). It is in the negative sense that Paul uses the imagery here.

5:10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view.

Paul's confidence was not so much in the intelligence of the Galatians as in the faithfulness of the Lord and his gospel. Similar confidence was expressed by Paul in Rom 14:14; Phil 2:24; and 2 Thess 3:4. To "take no other view" (oujdeΙn a[llo fronhvsete , ouden allo phronçsete ) did not mean that they would agree in every detail, but that they would have the same outlook or attitude in the way they saw things.

The optimism of this verse stands in sharp contrast to the condemnation of verse four. This probably indicates that the Galatian converts were still wavering in their views. Although they were currently heading down a path toward destruction, Paul had confidence they would even yet come back to the truth. It is with this perspective that Paul repeatedly calls them "brothers," as in the next verse.

The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.

"The one" is used here in a generic sense, with broad reference to any and all those who are teaching false doctrine. Paul elsewhere depicts such troublemakers in the plural (1:7 "some people are throwing you into confusion"; 5:12 "those agitators"; and 6:12-13 "that they may boast"). These people will pay the penalty (literally, "bear the judgment"), when they answer to God for their perversion. When Paul says "whoever he may be," he may be indicating that he does not know the identity of the Judaizers. More likely, however, Paul is fearlessly proclaiming that neither he nor God will be afraid to condemn these people for their error.

5:11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?

While it is well known that Paul had formerly been zealous to preach circumcision, it is surprising that anyone would have thought that he was still doing so. But somehow it had been reported that Paul still urged circumcision, at least in some circumstances, so Paul found it necessary to answer the charge they had heard. The word "if" (eij , ei ) is frequently used when the speaker does not accept the statement as factual, but acknowledges that others have alleged it to be so (as when Jesus said, "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons . . ." ). We do not know when or why Paul was accused of still preaching circumcision. Perhaps it grew out of the fact that he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) in Lystra, a city of southern Galatia where the event would have become common knowledge to other Galatians. Or it may be, as suggested by Howard, that Paul's opponents were genuinely unaware of his position, since it had only recently (and privately) been presented (Gal 2:2). Paul's sense of exasperation with the false teachers, however, seems to exclude the possibility of a sincere misunderstanding on their part.

At best Paul must have seemed inconsistent to his opponents; at worse he must have seemed a complete traitor. His apparent inconsistency in circumcising Timothy but not Titus, however, reflects the state of the entire Jewish wing of the church until A.D. 70. They continued to go to the temple to pray (Acts 3:1; 5:12), they avoided unclean foods (Acts 10:14), and thirty years after Pentecost many thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were still "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). But while they retained some of the features of Judaism, the Christians were not just a slight variation of the Jews. The intense persecution they faced - and Paul more than them all - proved that their doctrine was not the Jewish faith.

In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

The "offense" (skavndalon , skandalon ) of the cross was the "curse" brought down upon the one who hung there (Gal 3:13). Jesus' substitution was unacceptable to lawkeeping Jews, for it left them nothing by which they could earn at least part of their own salvation. If there could have been a kind of Christianity that included circumcision and excluded the cross, there would have been no conflict. Neither would there have been salvation.

5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

The "agitators" (ajnastatou'nte" , anastatountes ) now have a stronger name than before, when they had been called those who cause "trouble" (1:7, 5:10). The word of this verse is found in only two other places in the N.T., in Acts 17:6 where the Christians are accused of "turning the world upside down" (KJV), and in Acts 21:38 where an Egyptian had "started an insurrection" and led a revolt against the government.

Paul's emotional outburst against the agitators is quite understandable. The Galatians were his own children in the faith, and these intruders were about to cost his children their salvation! If they prized so highly the ritual of clipping away the foreskin, why not go further and cut off the genitals completely? The Galatians had, in fact, witnessed such a perversion in a local religion devoted to the goddess Cybele. Men who wished to serve Cybele as her priests would work themselves into a frenzy with dancing and wine, then take a knife and castrate themselves. Normal people (and God as well, Deut 23:1) would instinctively see this as horribly inappropriate. A Roman emperor of a later century also serves as an ugly illustration of what Paul is saying. Elagabalus, emperor A.D. 218-222, brought a Syrian idol to Rome and had himself circumcised in her honor. "He had planned, indeed, to cut off his genitals altogether."

C. THE ESSENCE OF LAW AND LOVE (5:13-15)

¹³ You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; ^a rather, serve one another in love. ¹⁴ The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." ^{b 15} If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

^a 13 Or the flesh ; also in verses 16, 17, 19 and 24 ^b 14 Lev. 19:18

5:13 You, my brothers, were called to be free.

The Galatians were called by God's grace (1:6) and they were free. Like Isaac, they were born to be free. Like all believers, the truth in Jesus Christ had set them free (John 8:32). This verse to the Galatian believers is pivotal, and it accomplishes two things: (1) it authorizes believers to lay claim to their freedom, and (2) it challenges believers to use their freedom responsibly.

But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature;

There is always the danger that people freed from one tyrant will fall prey to another. New Christians, who realize that their spiritual freedom has delivered them from bondage to law, may foolishly rush into a new servitude - bondage to their own flesh. (The NIV, regularly avoiding of the word "flesh," as the text literally says, supplies an acceptable alternative in the term "sinful nature.") People who spend their lives trying to satisfy every fleshly appetite find out this phony freedom is even worse than bondage to rules. This later predicament has not yet been the problem of the Galatians, but Paul knows the new danger they might well face in this opposite direction.

rather, serve one another in love.

The irony of true freedom is that it is found in servitude. When Paul says, "serve one another" he uses a word normally employed in the context of slavery (Greek douleuvete , douleuete ). The person who is set free from both slavery to law and slavery to self will find true freedom as the slave of Christ, an eager servant of the community of believers. Perhaps the key that makes this third kind of "slavery" to be real freedom lies in the qualifying phrase "in love." Just as real faith expresses itself through love (5:6), the joy of a Christian's freedom is discovered to rest upon love. Just as the old law brought bondage and death, the new "law of Christ" (6:2) introduces the believer into an exciting new community where people are free to love each other and serve each other's needs.

This verse encapsulates the whole message of Galatians:

1. You are free from the law (1:1-5:12).

2. Your freedom must not lead to carnality (5:14-21).

3. Your freedom must change your life (5:22-6:18).

5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

It is unfortunate that most people would sum up the spirit and intention of God's laws as "Thou shalt not." This fosters a spirit of legalism which sees life as a minefield, where we must always be careful not to step wrongly. What God would really rather see us do is rush from opportunity to opportunity, always eager to serve others. Law builds fences around what we must not do; love builds bridges to new places of service.

Careful students of the Old Testament had preceded Paul in seeing "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18) as "the whole of the law." Jesus, of course, summed up the requirements of the law and the prophets in this way (Matt 22:40). Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor; that is the whole law, everything else is commentary; go and learn it." Paul himself repeated the concept in Rom 13:9.

This verse focuses on man's entire ethical and moral duty, but in the context of his relationships to "one another" (v. 13). For this reason the verse omits the first half of Jesus' great summary of law ("Love God"), presupposing it from all that has been said thus far in the epistle.

5:15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other,

The NIV correctly catches the flavor of the Greek conditional sentence here. Paul does not set up a future hazard to be avoided; he warns of a present condition ("keep on biting") which must be halted. The Galatian churches were racked by civil war, not least of all over the very issue of law vs. grace. Personal attacks on each other were making the church look like ravenous jackals and blood-thirsty sharks.

watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

It is characteristic of legalism to tear down rather than build up. When the crusade of the self-righteous reaches its ultimate end, the community of believers is decimated and finally annihilated (Greek ajnalivskw , analiskô , "to be totally eaten, to be consumed by fire").

D. THE ACTS OF THE SINFUL NATURE (5:16-21)

¹⁶ So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. ¹⁷ For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. ¹⁸ But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. ¹⁹ The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; ²⁰ idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions ²¹ and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit,

"Here's what I mean," says Paul. Rather than the old bondage to law, and rather than the bondage to self that will ultimately cut off and destroy everybody else, the true path to freedom is to live (literally, "walk") with the Spirit. While this is the sole use of "walk" in Galatians, Paul uses it thirty times in his other epistles as a favorite way to describe the Christian life. It shows action, direction, a goal, and in this verse a companion Guide along the way.

The Spirit of God, as an indwelling presence, must increasingly guide our lives, "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" (Rom 8:14). While the will of the Spirit is disclosed in Scripture, we must resist the temptation to turn Scripture - even the New Testament part of it - into a codebook or manual of laws. The Spirit described in this context is a living reality, not a retired author. The Spirit was sent by God into our hearts, not onto our library shelves. His coming into their community was accompanied by miracles (3:5) and changed lives (5:16-18).

and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

The person who "walks" by the Spirit will not (Greek ouj mhv , ou mç , "by no means, definitely not") fulfill the desires of the flesh. While the fleshly desires have their appropriate times and places for gratification, to give way completely to fleshly desires is ultimate suicide. For instance, an empty stomach will crave food even if the food belongs to someone else. An attractive woman may attract one's attention regardless of whether she is one's own wife or some other man's wife. When these "neutral" appetites of the flesh are given the opportunity to overrun the bounds of what is right and appropriate, they become expressions of what the NIV terms "sinful nature." While the NIV term may have an undue flavor of Calvinism's "depravity" about it, we still must admit to at least a fatal "bent toward sinning" where our spirit must overrule our flesh.

5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit,

The flesh has its desires. These desires (food, sex, leisure, etc.) are not so much the opposite of what the Spirit wants for us; rather, they are indifferent to what the Spirit wants. The flesh is not so much determined to have what is evil; it is simply oblivious to what is right. Right or wrong, the flesh wants what it wants.

When people give their flesh the right to rule in their lives, they will only occasionally and accidentally do what God wants for them. The selfish life, then, cannot be a spiritual life. The flesh says, "Gratify yourself!" The Spirit says, "Love others."

and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature.

We have said that the flesh is, for the most part, demanding what the Spirit forbids. Likewise, what the Spirit demands is, for the most part, what the flesh resists. The flesh is not opposed to an occasional act of selfless love or service, but the total lifestyle demanded by the Spirit is out of the question!

They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

In this conflict the flesh and the Spirit are set in opposite positions (Greek ajntivkeitai , antikeitai ) like two armies entrenched for battle. This is the same inner turmoil so vividly depicted by Paul in Rom 7:14-25. Trapped in a body of death which has no concern for right and wrong, Paul decries his wretched state.

5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The solution for the wretched predicament, here as in Rom 7, is not for people just to try harder to resist their own carnal desires. Freedom comes in ways previously unsuspected: Jesus delivers from guilt (Rom 8:1) and the Spirit begins installing a new set of desires (Gal 5:22-23) which we have limitless permission to pursue. The law could condemn our misbehaviors, but was powerless to change them in any permanent way. We who are being led walk the path that increasingly leads to the final and total escape from our lifelong plight.

But how does the Spirit lead us? The surest way, of course, is through the precepts and principles of Scripture, the "sword of the Spirit" (Eph 6:17). But is this all? Has the Spirit retired from the field of battle, while Satan is still alive and well? Consider the access the devil has to tempt, prod, suggest, and urge us to do evil. Is there no corresponding action by the Spirit? Paul has affirmed that it is "God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Phil 2:13). While this inner prompting must be constantly measured against what we know of the Spirit's will expressed in Scripture, perhaps we would do well to discipline ourselves to be more sensitive to divine impulses.

5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious:

It is well and good to speak in broad generalities about good and evil, about Spirit and flesh. But there is a practical necessity to be specific, to present enough itemized examples to make the broad principles plain. The actions the "sinful nature" causes men to do are self-evident; at least they are to those with the luxury of living long enough to evaluate the fruit grown on carnal trees. For those who need to know now what things are clearly wrong in God's eyes, Paul enumerates this list of fifteen specifics.

Notice that the list of fifteen can be divided into four natural groups:

Personal immorality (#1-3)

Attempts to control the supernatural (#4-5)

Selfishness (#6-13)

Drunken carousing (#14-15)

These fifteen sinful actions obviously do not exhaust the list of possibilities, nor are they necessarily even the worst sins. They are quite adequate, however, to illustrate the tenor of the sinful nature Paul is discussing. [Within a few centuries after Paul certain zealous scribes apparently "improved" his list by adding adultery (v. 19) and murders (v. 21). Indeed, how could any "respectable" list of sins fail to include them? The KJV retains these additions, but they are not at all necessary to make Paul's point clear.]

sexual immorality,

"Sexual immorality" (porneiva , porneia ) originally meant to have sexual relations with prostitutes (povrnai , pornai , from a verb meaning "to sell"), but later grew to include any form of sex outside of marriage. Promiscuity was rampant in the Graeco-Roman world in Paul's time. It was so common, Bruce notes, that "except when carried to excess, it was not regarded as specially reprehensible." With only a bit of exaggeration Seneca concluded that "chastity is simply a proof of ugliness." From incest in the Roman imperial family, to homosexuality in Greek society, to casual adultery and fornication in the streets of villages, sexual life was "a lawless chaos." It is no doubt significant that the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:29) found it necessary to require specifically that the Gentile churches "abstain . . . from sexual immorality."

William Barclay even suggests that "chastity was the one completely new virtue which Christianity introduced into the pagan world." Society had come to accept sexual immorality as routine, philosophy had concluded that the physical body was naturally evil and its actions of little importance, and religion had embraced prostitution in its ritual. It is significant, then, that Paul's list of "acts of the sinful nature" should begin with "sexual immorality."

impurity

"Impurity" (ajkaqarsiva , akatharsia ) is a moral uncleanness that is broader that sexual immorality. While it includes sexual sin, it comes from a wider LXX usage where "unclean" could refer to anything that made a person unfit to go to the temple and appear before God. In a medical sense Hippocrates used this word to describe the pus and crusty impurities that gather around an infected sore or wound. What is "impure" is filthy and repulsive, especially to God.

and debauchery;

"Debauchery" (ajsevlgeia , aselgeia ) is the total disregard for all decency. It is the broadest of the three terms used thus far, and also the strongest. Debauchery is the blatant impudence of a Roman soldier who publicly urinated on the temple grounds at Jerusalem. It is the shameless wantonness of Jezebel as she built a shrine to Baal. It is the final state of the person who no longer cares about either public censure or divine wrath.

5:20 idolatry

Idolatry and witchcraft are linked to form the next grouping of the acts of sinful nature. Idolatry is the worship of a graven image or any other substitute for the true God. While the Jews had been mostly cured of worshiping idols during their captivity, the rest of the Graeco-Roman world was, as Paul observed in Athens, "quite superstitious" (Acts 17:22). The ancient world was flooded with idols of stone, wood, or precious metal, meant to localize and visualize the gods they represented. The people were not so primitive as to think the object itself was a god; rather, it was thought somehow to put them in touch with a god. It was only after the fact that the object itself took on an aura of reverence.

William Barclay makes this important observation about ancient idolatry: "The essence of idolatry is the desire to get. A man sets up an idol and worships it because he desires to get something out of God. To put it bluntly, he believes that by his sacrifices and his gifts and his worship, he can persuade, or even bribe, God into giving him what he desires." This is why Paul could say in another context, "greed is idolatry" (Col 3:5).

and witchcraft;

"Witchcraft" (farmakeiva , pharmakeia ) began as the attempt to use drugs and potions to harm one's enemies. (Ironically, on the positive side, it was out of this dabbling in drugs that modern medical science and the pharmaceutical industry originated.) By the time of Paul the word had come to include magic, incantations, drugs, and all the occult means by which men attempt to manipulate the dark powers of the supernatural world. Thus witchcraft and idolatry, alike in their condemnation by God (Deut 18:10-12), were also alike in their motive: the attempt to use the power of the unseen world for one's own selfish purposes.

hatred,

The next eight terms can be grouped together as sins of the conceited ego, sin spelled with a big "I". They have in common an inordinate self-love and a callous disregard for the well-being of others. They show what can happen when the instinct for self-preservation runs amok and "sinful nature" is not controlled by the Spirit.

Hatred (e[cqrai , echthrai ) is a plural word, perhaps best reflected by our word "hostilities." It is the spirit that looks with evil suspicion on anyone of a different race, tongue, nation, or creed. It is the "attitude of heart and mind that puts up barriers and draws the sword," but Christ has broken down the barrier (Eph 2:14) and has taught us to love those who are "hostile" (Matt 5:44).

discord,

"Discord" (e[ri" , eris ) or strife is the open outcome of inner hatred, the previous work of the flesh. Paul uses the word in eight other places in his epistles, and it is noteworthy that half of those eight passages describe strife in the church (1 Cor 1:11; 3:3; 2 Cor 12:20; Phil 1:15). The cure for discord in the church - or in any other community relationship - is humility, meekness, patience, and forbearance (Eph 4:2-3). Notice that these attitudes are the precise opposite of the "big I" sins of selfishness in this group.

jealousy,

"Jealousy" (zh'lo" , zçlos , from zevw , zeô "to boil, to be hot") is a word whose meaning hinges on the company it keeps. In a favorable setting it is often translated as "zeal" (cf. Gal 4:17). The word was used frequently of God ("the zeal of the LORD" in Isa 9:7) and his loyal servants (Elijah in 1 Kings 19:10, 14). "Zeal" for his father's house consumed Jesus (John 2:17, quoting Ps 69:9). But zçlos also has its dark side, when things boil out of control and the motive for the burning emotion is selfish. Then we translate the word as "jealousy." A more exact focus on this word will be seen when it is contrasted in v. 21 with the word "envy."

fits of rage,

"Fits of rage" (qumoiv , thymoi , plural of qumov" , thymos ) is another term which could have a much more noble meaning in another context. Plato saw thymos as the spirited element or vital force of the human soul, which needs to be controlled by intelligent reasoning. " Thymos is a great quality," Barclay notes, "but thymos needs a strong leash." When this spirited force is unleashed in the hands of man's sinful nature, all manner of evil results. In the N.T. the word is often used as a loose synonym for anger (ojrghv , orgç ), but with this occasional distinction: orgç is the "abiding and settled habit of mind," while thymos is the "turbulent agitation . . . the more passionate, and at the same time more temporary."

The "fits of wrath" that so easily get out of control in fallen men, then, are what we also call "losing your temper." Emotions flame up suddenly, "like fire in straw, quickly blazing up." If they also quickly die down, we often excuse ourselves, relieved that our pent-up rage has been released. We would do well to take more careful note of the burns and scars suffered by those around us.

selfish ambition,

"Selfish ambition" (ejriqei'ai , eritheiai , plural of ejriqeiva , eritheia ) is derived from the word for a hireling, someone who does something only for the pay (cf. Tobit 2:11). Crooked politicians, who serve in office only for what they can get out of it, are a good example of this. In Aristotle eritheia is the kind of self-seeking election intrigue that causes governments to fall, merely to satisfy the political cravings of the politician. Perhaps the most vivid use of this word, however, is found in another of Paul's own epistles. When he was imprisoned in Rome awaiting a possible sentence of death from Nero, certain preachers were scheming to stir up even more trouble against Paul. They were jealous of Paul's stature, and acting out of "selfish ambition," they wanted to see him punished for his success (Phil 1:17).

dissensions,

"Dissensions" (dicostasivai , dichostasiai , plural of dicostasiva , dichostasia ) means literally "dividing and standing apart." In Rom 16:17 Paul warned against "those who cause divisions ( dichostasiai ) and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned." Divisions or dissensions in the form of denominationalism have cruelly splintered the body of Christ. Moreover, the insidious nature of dissensions is such that it is always the other person who is in the wrong. In every one of the hundreds of divisions and sects in Christendom the loyalists say, "We are right. You are wrong. That's why we must separate from you." This is a product of the sinful nature, not the Spirit.

factions

"Factions" (aiJrevsei" , haireseis , plural of ai{resi" , hairesis ) comes from a verb meaning "to choose." Originally it was the process of choosing up sides over an issue; later it came to mean the troublesome issue itself. In this later sense the word entered the English language as "heresy" (thus the KJV translation). But for Paul the original sense of the word still obtained. When God's people divide into "sects" or factions around a particular issue or a notable champion of that issue, they are following the urging of their sinful nature. As Paul illustrated in 1 Cor 1:12 the fundamental problem is not choosing the wrong teacher or the wrong side of an issue; the problem is in choosing up sides over the issue in the first place.

5:21 and envy;

"Envy" (fqovnoi , phthonoi , plural of fqovno" , phthonos ) is the most sinister form of jealousy. It is not inspired to noble ambition by the success of others, nor even to simple jealousy and coveting. It is "pain at another's good," the base feeling of those who are "pained at their friend's successes." While the earlier word for "jealousy" is sometimes found in a positive sense, "envy" is always bad. God takes no pleasure in the downfall of his enemies (Ezek 18:32), but many a child of God has nursed a secret joy at some woe befalling his brother.

Within these last eight expressions of the sin of the "big I," it is worth noting the sequential relationship of the last four. The whole problem of divisions within Christ's church comes from the prideful "selfish ambition" of a few, who prefer to "stand apart" and create their own loyal "faction." These people look with undisguised "envy" at everybody else's sect, watching with glee whenever those others meet with misfortune.

drunkenness,

"Drunkenness" (mevqai , methai , plural of mevqh , methç ) is excessive indulgence in wine and strong drink. While wine was an everyday drink in the Mediterranean world, even pagan Romans and Greeks normally diluted the wine with water to avoid intoxication. A common ratio was one part wine to three parts water. Anything as strong as a 1:1 ratio was called "strong wine." The Jews had an especially keen sense of the evil of drunkenness, knowing that it disabled that very part of a man that was created most in the image of God. Bruce notes that "as gluttony is excessive indulgence in food, so methç is excessive indulgence in wine (and strong drink): both forms of excess are vices, but drunkenness is the more perilous because it weakens people's rational and moral control over their words and actions."

orgies,

"Orgies" (kw'moi , kômoi , plural of kw'mo" , kômos ) originally referred to the celebrations held by a winning athlete and his friends. Their joyful procession through the streets would be followed by a banquet and wine-drinking party. The celebration often ended in inebriation, and by the time of the N.T. the word usually carried the negative overtone of the English word "orgy." The only other use of the word in the N.T. is Rom 13:13, where Paul urged the readers to use their freedom wisely: "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies (kômoi ) and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy." Barclay describes it as "a lustful excess in physical and sexual pleasure which is offensive to God and to man alike."

and the like.

This list of fifteen acts of the sinful nature could be multiplied a hundred fold. They do, however, stand as representative of all the rest. Barclay notes this "grim fact" about the works of the flesh:

Without exception, everyone of them is a perversion of something which is in itself good. Immorality, impurity, licentiousness are perversions of the sexual instinct which is in itself a lovely thing and a part of love. Idolatry is a perversion of worship, and was begun as an aid to worship. Sorcery is a perversion of the use of healing drugs in medicine. Envy, jealousy and strife are perversions of that noble ambition and desire to do well which can be a spur to greatness. Enmity and anger are a perversion of that righteous indignation without which the passion for goodness cannot exist. Dissension and the party spirit are a perversion of the devotion to principle which can produce the martyr. Drunkenness and carousing are the perversion of the happy joy of social fellowship and of the things which men can happily and legitimately enjoy. Nowhere is there better illustrated the power of evil to take beauty and to twist it into ugliness, to take the finest things and to make them an avenue for sin. The awfulness of the power of sin lies precisely in its ability to take the raw material of potential goodness and turn it into the material of evil.

It is also important to observe that most of these "works of the flesh" are not what we would normally call "carnal" actions. The preponderance of sins that expose a selfish spirit tells us something of God's ideas about sin.

I warn you, as I did before,

"I am telling you in advance," Paul says, so that the readers would not have to learn the hard way what things are not profitable for Christians. It is really a kindness, and not a burden, for God to reveal what actions and attitudes bear bitter fruit.

that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Those who "live like this" are those who "continue practicing" (present tense participle of pravssw , prassô ) such things. While God readily forgives the sinner for all such sins in his past, the sinner must not glibly think God will automatically forgive the same ongoing sins in his future. The Christian may never find immunity to these sins while still on earth, but he must never relent in the struggle to subdue the flesh by the Spirit.

The "kingdom of God" is both a present reality and a future inheritance in N.T. writings. Jesus opened his ministry by saying, "The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God has drawn near" (Mark 1:15). When Peter exercised his "keys to the kingdom" and preached the gospel at Pentecost, much of the promised kingdom became a reality (Matt 16:19; Acts 2:16-42). As Given Blakely has noted, Christians have "a conscious participation" in the work of the kingdom as they become "laborers together with God" (1 Cor 3:9).

In the future sense, however, the final realization of the kingdom is yet to come. Bruce suggests there may be a distinction between the present kingdom of Christ (1 Cor 15:25) and the future kingdom of God, when Christ will "hand over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24). We must be cautious in drawing this distinction, however, because as Bruce further notes, in Eph 5:5 "the kingdom of Christ and of God" is one and the same kingdom.

E. THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT (5:22-26)

²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ²⁴ Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. ²⁵ Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. ²⁶ Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit

Fruit, or "harvest" (karpov" , karpos ), is what something naturally produces. When a tree is rotten it naturally produces rotten fruit (Matt 7:17). But when the indwelling Spirit of God himself begins to express his mighty power in the inner being of believers, good things begin to happen. The nature of God himself begins to manifest itself in our lives.

is love,

The primary Christian virtue is love. God is love; Christ Jesus is his great demonstration of love. When Christ dwells in our hearts we begin to fathom how great that love is (Eph 3:17-18). But it is difficult to speak clearly about love in the English language, where "love" has been so overworked and abused. The Greek language of Paul's day, on the other hand, had several words for love. "Erw" (erôs ) was a passionate love that was often tainted by the lust for carnal gratification. This kind of love always tries to use the object of love to fulfill its own hunger for excitement and emotional intoxication. Filiva ( philia ) was the broad love of both friendship and romance, the highest secular Greek word for love. This love was less selfish than mere carnal sexuality, and could be a rather noble attraction to someone or something that had lovable qualities. But as early as Aristotle it was noted that "when the loved one's beauty fades, the philia sometimes fades too." Storghv (storgç ) was a more narrow term, reserved for family love that is confined to the family circle. This love resisted embracing outsiders. The fourth term, ajgavph (agapç ), became almost exclusively the Christian word for love.

For people familiar with agapç in the New Testament, it is startling to discover that this great word is "almost completely lacking in pre-biblical Greek." A verb form (ajgapavw , agapaô ) was used occasionally by the Greeks, but they found in it "nothing of the power or magic of erôs and little of the warmth of philia ." Thus, at the end of the Greek classical period the language had a word for love that had been little used as a verb, and as a noun not at all. Agapç began to be important when the LXX translators transcribed the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Their use of agapç set the stage for N.T. usage, where this fresh, unsoiled word could be used to describe the love of God. It was not that agapç was such a noble word in the 1st century; it was that it was employed to tell about such a noble God.

From the N.T., then, we learn that agapç is a love that is chosen by the will of the lover, not the loveliness of the one loved. It is a love that is freely given without counting the cost nor calculating one's own profit. It goes deeper than mere emotion, lasts longer than mere attractiveness, and reaches wider than mere bloodline. The word that had been neglected as "colorless" was eagerly seized by Scripture because it was pure. Unlike all other loves, the quality of agapç is not diluted as the circle of love expands.

In a way, all nine elements of the fruit of the Spirit are merely expressions of the first - love. Joy and peace are the heart and soul of love. Love is patient, kind, and good to others. Love is dependable, gentle, and the basis of self-control. Love not only heads the list; it also sums up the list.

joy,

The Christian life is a life of joy (carav , chara ). It is founded on faith in Jesus, whose life on earth began as "good news of great joy for all people" (Luke 2:10). It is climaxed in his victory over death, an event so great it initially caused even his disciples to "disbelieve for joy" (Luke 24:41). The theme of joy is underscored by the 59 uses of "joy" and the 74 uses of "rejoice" in the N.T.

Unlike the jaded pleasures of the world, the joy of the N.T. is a spontaneous, radiant, happy response to life. It has a bright, clean air about it. The joy that is produced by the Spirit does not depend on circumstances; it triumphs over circumstances. On the night before his death Jesus spoke of joy to his disciples, "that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete" (John 15:11).

peace,

The ancient world was divided over peace (eijrhvnh , eirçnç ). Greek philosophers had their idea of pursuing peace, but the Hebrew prophets had quite another. The philosophers said peace could come only with the elimination of desire, the death of emotion, the cessation of caring, and the complete absence of depending on anyone else for happiness. Peace was too often a negative thing, a void, a bland tranquility. But for the Hebrew mind peace was a positive thing; it was having all that was needed for a happy, satisfying life. For instance, when Joseph asked his brothers about their father's well-being (Gen 43:27), his literal question was, "Is it shalom with your aged father?" He was not asking, "Is your father staying out of trouble?"; he meant, "Does your father have all that he needs for his highest good?"

The N.T. promise of peace was proclaimed by the angels' chorus of peace on earth (Luke 2:14). All those who follow the Prince of Peace could expect to be freed from the inner turmoil of guilt and despair, for his righteousness becomes their own. "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). Unlike the Galatian legalists, those who trust in Jesus come to know both the "God of peace" and "the peace of God" (Phil 4:7, 9). Those who trust in their own works can never be sure they have done enough.

patience,

"Patience" (makroqumiva , makrothymia ) means literally "long-tempered," as opposed to "short-tempered." It refers to what we might call "staying power," to endure hard events and obnoxious people. While the word was not frequently used in classical literature, it has a rich history in the LXX. "A man's wisdom gives him patience" (Prov 19:11), with which he can calm a quarrel (Prov 15:18) or persuade a ruler (Prov 25:15). More importantly, patience makes a man like God, who is "righteous and strong and long-tempered" (Ps 7:12, LXX). One of the great truths about God is that he is "slow to anger" (makroqumov" , makrothymos ), repeated by Moses (Exod 34:6), David (Ps 103:8), Joel (2:13), Jonah (4:2), Nahum (1:3), and Nehemiah (9:17). Peter assures us that "the Lord is patient, not wanting anyone to perish" (2 Pet 3:9). Patience is the even temper that comes from a big heart. It is not the "grit your teeth" kind of angry endurance; it is loving tolerance in spite of people's weakness and failure. Love is patient (1 Cor 13:4) and so must Christians be (Eph 4:2).

kindness,

The one-dimensional English word "kindness" fails to capture the depth of meaning of this fifth virtue (Greek crhstovth" , chrçstotçs ) in the fruit of the Spirit. The word derives from a verb meaning "to take into use" and has the basic sense of "excellent," "serviceable," or "useful." It refers to something that is well suited for its purpose, such as a "worker" bee, an "orderly" house, or "healthy and tasty" food. When the word was applied to people it meant they were "worthy," "decent," "honest." When a person is all that he is supposed to be - when a human is humane - he is decent, reliable, gentle, and kind. All of this is included in what our Bible calls "kindness." It is not just a sweet disposition: it is a serving, productive trait as well.

Like all the fruit of the Spirit, kindness is a fundamental character trait of God. The Psalmist rejoiced, "Give thanks to the Lord, for he is kind (crhstov" , chrçstos ), his love endures forever" (Ps 106:1). In the N.T. it is always Paul who speaks of the kindness of God, a kindness that is manifested in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:7) and leads men to repentance (Rom 2:4). "When the kindness . . . of God our Savior appeared, he saved us" (Titus 3:4). The person who inherits this trait from his Father will be gracious, kind, and decent - and will be active in meeting people's needs.

goodness,

"Goodness" (ajgaqwsuvnh , agathôsynç ) overlaps kindness in much of its meaning. The tree that is "good" is productive (Matt 7:17); land that is "good" is fertile (Luke 8:8); a "good" employer is generous with his workers (Matt 20:15). This sense of productive generosity is very similar to the useful helpfulness of "kindness." Barclay goes so far as to say that "the primary idea of agathôsynç is generosity," especially the kind of generosity which gives a man what he never could have earned.

The earlier commentators, however, found a more distinctive difference between kindness and goodness. "In this it differs," said Jerome, "because goodness is able to be more stern or harsh, with the severe wrinkled brow of death; to do well and to perform because it is required." Trench quotes St. Basil to the effect that goodness is used more in the context of doing righteousness. Trench goes on to say, "A man might display his agathôsynç his zeal for goodness and truth, in rebuking, correcting, chastising," as when Christ drove the buyers and sellers from the temple, or when he pronounced woes against the scribes and Pharisees. This was the domain of goodness. Kindness, on the other hand, was what Christ showed to the sinful woman who wept at his feet (Luke 7:37).

If the words are taken with the distinction maintained by the earlier commentators, kindness and goodness balance each other nicely. Kindness alone might be too ready to forgive failure; goodness alone might be too ready to condemn. Working together, as the virtues are found in the life of Christ, the divine balance is achieved.

faithfulness,

While the Greek pivsti" ( pistis ) is most often translated as "faith," the act of trusting or believing God, in this context most versions translate it as "faithfulness," the virtue of being trustworthy and dependable. The reason for understanding the word this way is the company in which it is found in this passage. The other eight virtues are ethical qualities, and it is more likely that "faith/faithfulness" should be an ethical quality as well.

The person who is becoming a partaker of the divine nature will be faithful and loyal, someone on whom people can depend. God himself is totally trustworthy (Rom 3:3) and requires this virtue in those who serve him (1 Cor 4:2). Dependability must be exercised toward both men and God. Those who serve God by serving men can expect to be rewarded as "good and faithful servants" (Matt 25:21). Those who have been faithful in very little will be given the opportunity to be faithful in much (Luke 16:10).

5:23 gentleness

The KJV translation of this word (Greek prau?th" , prautçs ) as "meek" has led many people to an unfortunate misunderstanding of this virtue. Paul meant "the fruit of power," but the English word "meekness" depicts someone who is weak and wimpy. Paul's concept was a person who has strength under control; "meekness" implies a weak person who acts timidly because he cannot help himself. If we switch from "meek" to "gentle" we have improved the situation, but we still have not caught the real force of the word.

The Greeks used this word to describe strong animals that were brought under control. Thus, Xenophon said that horses that work together are more likely to "stand quietly" together; Aristotle spoke of the "easy-tempered and easily domesticated" elephant; and Plato described a mighty and strong beast which could be tamed and fed by a man who learned how to handle it. Barclay says the best illustration is the watchdog "who is bravely hostile to strangers and gently friendly with familiars whom he knows and loves."

The use of prautçs in Scripture follows this pattern of strength brought under control. Only two individuals are described by this word in Scripture: Moses in the O.T. (Num 12:3) and Jesus three times in the N.T. (Matt 11:29; Matt 21:5; 2 Cor 10:1). Both display the obedient response to the reins of a good horse, the gentle strength of an elephant, the ferocious courage of a watchdog to guard his master's property. Their "meekness" was not weakness; it was a heart surrendered to God, a teachable spirit, a gentle strength.

and self-control.

The KJV "temperance" has again misled many modern readers, who are familiar with the English word primarily in the sense

of avoiding drunkenness. Paul's original term (Greek ejgkravteia , enkrateia ) referred to the "holding in" of desire. Plato said enkrateia "is the ordering or controlling of certain pleasures and desires . . . implied in the saying of 'a man being his own master.'" In his idealized State, "temperance and self-mastery truly express the rule of the better part over the worse." Aristotle's treatise on ethics describes the self-controlled man as "ready to abide by the result of his calculations," while the man without self-control is ready to abandon them. Felix, who needed to be lectured by Paul on righteousness and self-control (Acts 24:25), is a ready reminder that the philosophers' goal for perfect men was not always achieved.

What shall we make of the fact that even pagans admire the virtues on our list, and a limited degree of attainment can be found in their lives? Or put another way, how can the fruit of the Spirit be found in the life of a person who does not have the Spirit? The answer lies in the fact that all men are created in the image of God, and even fallen men have some vestiges of the original image. It should not surprise us to meet an unbeliever who is kind, or a pagan who is joyful. All people have certain remnants of their Father's nature in their personal temperament. However, what the Christian continually seeks to attain through the indwelling Spirit is nothing less than the restoration of the total divine nature, the finishing of the new creation.

The perfect example of the complete "harvest of the Spirit" can be found in Jesus Christ, in whom the Spirit was given without measure (John 3:34). It is a rewarding adventure to read the life of Jesus in the four Gospels, carefully observing how many times he demonstrated each Spiritual grace.

Against such things there is no law.

Christians are free to express this part of their new nature with joyful abandon. The Spirit, who strengthens the inner being (Eph 3:16), unleashes an unimaginable potential for growth in grace. But are these nine graces something we do, or things the Spirit does for us? The answer must be a combination of the two. While the Spirit originates and empowers these graces, each one is also elsewhere commanded in the N.T. Scriptures:

Love - "A new command I give you: Love one another"

(John 13:34).

Joy - "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!"

(Phil 4:4).

Peace - "Live in peace" (2 Cor 13:11).

Patience - "Be patient, bearing with one another in love"

(Eph 4:2).

Kindness - "Be kind and compassionate to one another

(Eph 4:32).

Goodness - "Let us do good to all people" (Gal 6:10).

Faithfulness - "Be faithful, even to the point of death" (Rev 2:10).

Gentleness - "Be completely humble and gentle" (Eph 4:2).

Self-control - "Make every effort to add . . . self-control"

(2 Pet 1:5-6).

But the command alone could never produce the fruit. Laws can forbid some things and demand others, but law cannot produce love, joy, peace, and the rest. S. H. Hooke has well said, "A vine does not produce grapes by Act of Parliament; they are the fruit of the vine's own life; so the conduct which conforms to the standard of the Kingdom is not produced by any demand, not even God's, but it is the fruit of that divine nature which God gives as the result of what he has done in and by Christ."

5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature

Like Paul, every believer in Christ can point back to Calvary and say, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). But Christ's followers must also frequently be reminded, "you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God" (Col 3:3). Because the Christian has been united with Christ through baptism into his death, the Christian must live a new life (Rom 6:3-7) with the heart and mind set on things above (Col 3:1-2).

It is the cross of Christ by which the believer has made this clean break with the past. The cross exposes the awful ugliness of sin, provides the cleansing from its otherwise permanent stain, and supplies the power to motivate the Christian to keep reaching above the fleshly level of living. The cross, Paul's sole object of boasting (Gal 6:14), has triumphed where the law had failed.

with its passions and desires.

"Passions" comes from a word (pavqhma , pathçma ) that is more often translated "sufferings" or "misfortunes." In this sense it describes the inner lusts that drive a man, without completely leaving behind the notion that man is an unfortunate victim of the situation. The "desires" (ejpiqumiva , epithymia ) are the specific expressions of the inner passions. Both words carry a strong sexual overtone, but neither word is exclusively restricted to sexual excess.

5:25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

The NIV is not entirely consistent in its translation of the Greek ei as "since" in this verse, but as "if" in verse 18. The word can be understood as "since," indicating that the speaker believes the condition to be an actual fact, but it is better to translate it "if" and let the context determine the reality of the condition. By keeping the more literal "if" as the translation, we understand Paul as not just telling the Galatians they are alive by the Spirit, but challenging them to answer back to him whether they are. And if they claim to live by the Spirit, let them prove it by keeping in step with the Spirit.

Perhaps it is best to let individual readers decide the reality of the condition in their own lives. Am I made alive by God's Spirit? Would I be hopelessly dead without him? Is the Spirit my source of being, the very ground of my existence? If so, then shouldn't I stay close to my "life-support system"? Shouldn't I keep in step with (literally, "get in line with") the Spirit, so that his direction becomes my direction and his ways become my ways? As Calvin wrote, "The death of the flesh is the life of the Spirit. If God's Spirit lives in us, let Him govern all our actions." Our outward actions should match our inward power. That is what it really means to be "spiritual."

5:26 Let us not become conceited,

The conceit of which Paul speaks is the "empty glory" (kenovdoxo" , kenodoxos ) of boasting when there is nothing to boast about. If the Spirit has supplied both the power and the pattern for our living, why should we pretend we have accomplished something? There is an irony in the double temptation Christians face in this kind of boasting. The legalist tries to boast in his lawkeeping, while those who have escaped legalism often feel smug about their superior freedom. It is hard to decide whether Paul was looking back to their past or ahead to their future when he warned the Galatians against this kind of arrogance.

provoking and envying each other.

The kind of conceit Paul warns against is further described by two of its common traits: provoking and envying. Provoking (Greek prokalevomai , prokaleomai , used only here in the N.T.) is literally "calling beforehand," challenging an opponent to combat. Many a theological debate has been fueled by such an expression of inward conceit. Envying (fqonevw , phthoneô ) is the verbal form of envy, the act of the sinful nature listed in 5:21. It is the mean spirit that begrudges someone else's success and rejoices at his failure.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Gal 5:11

But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away. [It is evident that in this verse Paul defends himself against the charge of having taught the necessity of circumcision by having circumcised Timothy. His answer is that false brethren might misconstrue his act for the purpose of founding false teaching upon it, but that the Jews, the real parties in interest, placed a truer construction upon the act, for they still continued to persecute him as an enemy to circumcision. If Paul had preached circumcision, the stumbling-block of the cross would have been done away. Paul taught that the whole Jewish system of ordinances perished at the cross, and that on the cross Jesus made the one and only atonement for sin. Such teaching was a stumbling-block to the Jews. Had Paul rejected the doctrine of the cross and preached circumcision, as these Judaizers contended that he did when they wished to countenance their errors with his authority, he would have been a hero among the Jews.]

Lapide: Gal 5:1-26

CHAPTER 5

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i. S. Paul proceeds to urge the Galatians not to submit to the yoke of the Old Law, lest they be deprived of the fruits of Christ's righteousness, since in Him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision will avail anything, but only faith which worketh by love.

ii. He invites them (ver. 13) to Christian liberty, and shows that it is based on charity, which causes him to pass from the dogmatic to the ethical portion of the Epistle.

iii. He points out (ver. 17) how the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and then he enumerates the works of each respectively.

Ver. 1.— Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. You once served idols and devils: why do you now wish to serve the shadows and burdensome ceremonies of the Mosaic law? The Greek for entangled is rendered by the Vulgate contained, by Vatablus implicated, by Erasmus ensnared. The Judaisers, says S. Paul, are enticing you to their law as into a net, in which, if you are once entangled, you will be unable to escape from its legal windings and toils.

Ver. 2.— If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. If you trust to circumcision as necessary to salvation, Christ and His religion will be of no avail to you; but you seem to be putting your trust in this under the tuition of the Judaisers, although you were Gentiles, and baptized as such. Why do you tack on circumcision to baptism now? There can be no other reason for this proceeding except your belief that baptism by itself is insufficient, and needs to be supplemented by circumcision. Certainly you have not the Jews' pretext that they use circumcision in deference to their law. This may be good excuse for them; it is none for you.

Ver. 3.— I testify. He who is circumcised thereby proclaims his allegiance to the Jewish Church, its laws and its obligations, just as one who is baptized does with regard to the Christian Church. The Apostle is seeking to dissuade the Galatians by a reason drawn from the burdensome character of the yoke of the Mosaic law.

Ver. 4. — Christ is become of no effect unto you. You are outside the redemption wrought by Christ, deprived of His merits, and void of His grace.

Whosoever of you are justified by the law. Who seek for righteousness from circumcision and other legal rites. By distrusting the grace of Christ and preferring the law, you have treated Christ with ingratitude, and in consequence He has withdrawn His grace from you. The Galatians, says S. Paul, were once filled with the grace of Christ, like a well with water; but they have now emptied it all out, and so lost the fruits of His Passion. Or, to put it in another way, Christ has emptied His Church of them, because of their want of faith. [ Note.— The Vulgate rendering here is evacuati estis.]

Vatablus [as A.V.] interprets the term to mean that Christ had become of no effect, His labour had been thrown away, His Passion made fruitless by the withdrawal of His grace. The very name of Christian was no longer due to them, and should be dropped; or if they wished to retain it, they must say farewell to the law. Cf. a similar expression in Rom 7:6.

Ver. 5. — For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. This is to prove that the Judaisers, in seeking to be justified by the law, are no longer Christians; for we, he says, who are Christians indeed look for the promised righteousness, not from the law, but from the Spirit, through faith in Christ.

It is faith which excites hope, and so causes a man to pray for that grace by which we are justified. Some take the hope of righteousness here for eternal glory, which we hope to obtain through righteousness. Others, and better, take it to be that righteousness which we all pray and sigh for, which the Jews seek through their law, and Christians from Christ.

Ver. 6. — For in Christ Jesus, &c. In the Church neither Judaism nor Gentilism is of any avail towards the life of holiness and bliss. Judaism is depreciated here by being classed with Gentilism. The only effectual power is faith—not a faith that is barren of works, but that which worketh by love, and manifests itself in works of charity. Such a faith was that of the Magdalene when she bathed Christ's feet with her tears. But a faith which shows no works of charity is, as Anselm says, the faith, not of Christians, but of devils. The Protestants who attribute justification to faith alone should remark this. Our brother Campian, the martyr of England, when in prison and disputing with the Lutherans, refuted them by this syllogism: That faith which avails before God to justify is, as the Apostle testifies, a faith which worketh by love; therefore it is obvious that it is united to charity. But the justifying faith of the Lutherans is not a faith that worketh by love, for it is, they say, alone, and hence is not accompanied by charity; therefore, the faith which they lay down is not a faith that justifies before God. To say, then, that faith is alone, and that such a faith justifies, is a contradiction. If faith is to justify, it must be accompanied by charity; and when it is so accompanied it is no longer alone.

It should be remarked that faith does not work by means of charity as an efficient cause works by its instrument, but in the way that beat in the form of fire kindles wood. Faith through charity does good works, by performing acts of charity towards God and our neighbour, and by determining, the nature of acts of other virtues. For charity is not an essential but an accidental form, which gives to faith and all good works their life, validity, and merit, in due relation to their ultimate end. It gives to faith and all other virtues (1.) their character of virtue. Where charity is, vice cannot be; but virtue reigns enthroned as queen by charity, which ennobles also every act, so that the man under its sway may be called absolutely virtuous, righteous, and holy. (2.) Charity also gives the acts of virtue their dignity and power of winning merit, for it makes a man the friend and son of God, and so dignifies his works that God promises them eternal rewards. (3.) Charity also determines the relation of the various acts of virtue to their ultimate end, inasmuch as it directs to God the whole man, and all that he does, says, or thinks. So S. Thomas.

The Greek word for worketh denotes internal efficacy, hidden power. Faith informed by charity, having charity as its soul, by its inward and spiritual power, worketh the living works of virtue.

Ver. 7. — Ye did run well. In the teaching of Christ, as in an arena a runner strives to win the appointed prize.

Who did hinder you? Or, as S. Anselm renders it, Who did bewitch you, to start aside from your Christian course, and to run after Judaism?

Ver. 8. — This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. The counsel given you by the Jews, that the ceremonies of the law are necessary to salvation, cometh not from God the Father, who hath called you through Christ, but from the devil and his angels. So Anselm.

Ver. 9 . — A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A little leaven communicates its bitterness to the whole mass of meal. This is a maxim describing the way that a vicious part spoils the whole, and of course is capable of general application. In 1Co 5:6 it is applied to the fornicator who was corrupting the whole Corinthian Church, and here it is applied to the Judaisers, who are being dealt with throughout this chapter, and declares that they are corrupting the whole of the Galatian Church. Jerome says: " Arius in Alexandria was but a single spark, but not being at once extinguished, he grew to a flame, and devastated the whole world. For their word eateth the body as a canker, and the rot in a single sheep infects the whole flock."

The maxim may be yet more fitly applied to the doctrine itself of the Judaisers, in the sense that a single error in the faith, such as that about the necessity of the law, overturns the whole faith. Chrysostom and Theophylact apply it, yet more particularly, to circumcision, the receipt of which acts like leaven, and corrupts the whole lump. Their application is supported by the fact that the Apostle, in vers. 2, 4, and 6, is treating of circumcision, and declares that he who is circumcised is debtor to the whole law. The Judaisers, however, seem to have persuaded the Galatians that circumcision was not a matter of great moment, and to have passed lightly over the onerous character of the burdens to which those who were circumcised subjected themselves. On the contrary, Paul here lays bare their artifice, and declares circumcision to denote a profession of the whole of the Jewish law, and to be a corruption of Christianity as a whole, on the ground that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Ver. 10.— I have confidence in you. I trust the Lord to stablish you in the faith you have received, and to save you from believing aught save what I have taught you, and from following these new teachers and their novel doctrines.

But he that troubleth you. He who is stirring up this strife, and tending the whole Church, shall bear the punishment which God in His wrath shall inflict on those who teach heresy. By metonymy, judgment is put for punishment.

Ver. 11 . — And I, brethren, if I yet preach. This is a reply to the calumny of the Judaisers, that Paul Judaised among the Jews, and opposed Judaism among the Gentiles. He asks, if this be so, why the Jews should so persecute him, and implies that the real reason is that he publicly opposes them, and condemns circumcision, so as to establish the Gospel.

Then is the offence of the cross ceased. If what they say of me is true, then they are not offended at the Cross which I preach, for they themselves wish to seem Christians, provided only that the Mosaic law may be taken into partnership with the Cross. Nay, the stricter Jews, whose only concern is for Judaism, oppose the preaching of the Cross only because it overturns their law, so much so that they would cease to persecute me if I would combine the law and the Cross. But since, as a matter of fact, they are offended at my preaching, it is obvious that I openly preach the abolition of the law by the Gospel, and the sole sufficiency of the Cross for salvation.

Ver. 12.— I would that they were even cut off which trouble you. Cut off from the Church and your fellowship, lest they corrupt the whole. Cf. 1Co 5:3. This is the obvious meaning, and one befitting the dignity of an apostolic writer. However, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome, Augustine, and others understand it of the total deprivation of the organ to which circumcision is applied, so as to bring it more closely within the scope of the whole passage, in which circumcision is the main topic.

It may be asked how the Apostle can rightly imprecate a curse on the Judaisers, since this is opposed to charity, and is a mark of impatience and of a revengeful temper. " So detestable," says Jerome, " is the act of castration, that whoever inflicts it on a man against his will, or on himself, ought to be accounted infamous."

1. Jerome replies that the Apostle said this as a man and in passion; but God forbid that an Apostle, and one especially who was moved by the Holy Spirit, should so speak. Accordingly, Jerome gives another answer, according to which, like Peter to Simon Magus (Act 8:20), and Elisha to the children who mocked him (2Ki 2:24), he spoke, not in anger, but partly in zeal for righteousness, partly in love, and entreated that they might be punished through their sin, i.e., through circumcision, and so, when punished, be purged of their shame.

2. Chrysostom and Theophylact say that the Apostle is not imprecating a curse, but speaking jestingly, as much as to say, If they insist on it, let them be not only circumcised, but wholly cut off.

3. S. Augustine and Anselm think that there is no curse here but a blessing, as if he were to say, Would that the Jews would become spiritual eunuchs by chastity for the kingdom of heaven's sake, and cease to preach Jewish circumcision, fixing their thoughts instead on heavenly things, and on the law of Christ, as the way to attain them. Of these three explanations the second of Jerome's is the best.

Origen castrated himself to prevent the motions of lust disturbing his chastity, but, as Chrysostom rightly says, wrongly; for this is not taught by the Apostle, nor is it the members of the body but our vices that are to be cut off, otherwise it would be lawful to destroy our eyes, ears, and tongue. Moreover, castration does not destroy lust, but sometimes increases it, as S. Basil says in his treatise on Virginity. Cf. Ecclus. 20:2, and Ecclus 30:21.

Which trouble you. Who would rob you of your evangelical liberty.

Ver. 13.— Ye have been called unto liberty. Liberty from the burden of so many useless ceremonies of the law. Christian liberty throughout the Epistle is contrasted with Jewish slavery.

It is obvious, therefore, how grossly the Protestants pervert the Apostle's words, when they argue from this that Christians are free from all positive law, and owe no obedience to prelates, to magistrates, or to parents. This is contrary to the law of nature and the Decalogue, subversive of all civil government, of all ecclesiastical order, of all human society. There has never been a nation, however barbarous, without its magistrates and laws, nor without them could the peace be kept, nor any nation continue, as all nations have clearly seen. If once men are persuaded that the civil or the ecclesiastical law does not oblige in conscience, but only as its sanctions constrain our fears, they will violate the law without any scruple, whenever they think it safe to do so. Accordingly, Christ, Paul, and the Apostles in general frequently order Christians to obey Cæsar and other unbelieving magistrates, not only for wrath's sake, but also for conscience's sake. Cf. Rom. 13.

It may be objected that at all events, by parity of reasoning, Christians, since they live under a law of liberty, ought to be free from subjection to so many canons and rules, the burden of which is equal to that imposed by the older law. I answer that no just comparison can be drawn—(1.) Because the laws of the Church, so far as they concern the laity, are much fewer in number, and are all reducible to the five precepts of the Church. The canons, it is true, which deal with the clergy, are more numerous, but no one is obliged by them unless he, of his own tree will, chooses to become a clerk. Moreover, it is the duty of the Pope and the Bishops to see that the number of canons and censures be reduced rather than added to. Many men of unquestioned piety are anxious lest too heavy a burden of rules be laid on the clergy, and so become a snare to them. (2.) Because the older laws were more burdensome and more difficult of observance, as may be seen in the number of sacrifices and lustrations. (3.) Because they were shadows of the laws of the New Testament. These latter, therefore, as being of easier observance, succeed to the former; and, surely, it is better to serve the reality than to serve shadows. (4.) The older laws were unable to excite internal piety, and could only keep the people from idolatry, as the Fathers lay down unanimously; but the laws of the Church are ordained for the special purpose of exciting piety, as is clearly shown by the laws about fasting, hearing Mass, confessing, and communicating.

Only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh. Do not (as the Protestants in our time are doing) use your freedom from Jewish ceremonies as an excuse for rushing into the lusts of the flesh. Do not let the flesh take what the Jew has been forced to give up.

But by love serve one another. As Chrysostom says: " Having removed one yoke, he, lest they should wax wanton, imposes another, the yoke of charity, so much the more strong as it is more light and pleasant." Do not, says the Apostle, serve ceremonies, nor yet the flesh; I would have you free from both, and subject to one another through the spirit of love. The love of the Spirit is opposed to that love of the flesh so much boasted of by Adamites and other obscene sectaries.

1. The Apostle, as Chrysostom says, here cuts at the root of the evil, viz., the heresy and schism which induced some of the Galatians to try and draw others away to Judaism, and declares it to be pride and the love of power. He then applies the remedy, viz., charity.

" Since you have been torn asunder, while you were trying to get the mastery one over the other, now serve one another and return to unity. As fire melts wax, so does love more readily disperse all pride and arrogance " (Chrysostom in loco ).

2. Chrysostom does not here say love one another, but serve one another, because charity makes men servants, not by compulsion, but by glad choice, even to the extent of performing the meanest services for the poor and the afflicted. This holy and free service is not bondage, but a noble freedom, to be sought for by all Christians.

3. From the liberty of the law and the liberty of the flesh the Apostle now passes, by an easy transition, to the second part of the Epistle. From doctrine he proceeds to morals, with the view of improving the conduct of the Galatians.

Ver. 14. — For all the law is fulfilled in one word. That is, the whole law so far as it concerns our neighbour, or according to what was said in the preceding verse, as we serve one another. Cf. Rom 13:8. S. Augustine ( de Trin. lib. viii.), S. Thomas, Anselm, however, say that the whole law rests on the love of God or of our neighbour, but that the latter presupposes the former, inasmuch as our neighbour is to be loved for the sake of God. Therefore he who loves his neighbour both fulfils the law, which says, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and also loves God and fulfils the law, which says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.

Ver. 15.— But if ye bite and devour one another. Beware, if you attack one another with calumnies, lest you be mutually consumed. Two men calumniating and enviously pursuing each other are like two dogs fighting, and biting each other. They consume each other, nay, they devour themselves. Well said the poet: " Than envy nothing is more just, for it forthwith bites and tortures its author." And therefore: " Than envy not even Sicilian tyrants have found a greater torment." See my notes on Phi 1:18, where I enumerate the properties of envy. Wisely and piously said S. Augustine ( Sent. 179): " To a religious man it ought to be little not to excite enmities, or to excite them only by awkward speech; he ought to strive to extinguish them by seasonable discourse."

Ver. 16.— I say then, Walk in the Spirit. The summary, the one aim of the whole of this Epistle, is this: Walk not in the law, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. The root of all your trouble is want of the Spirit: if you had Him, you would shut out as well the legal as the carnal life.

To walk in the Spirit is to order our whole life after the impulse of the Spirit, who inspired us to works of piety, to prayer, faith, charity, and works of mercy. This Spirit the Apostles received abundantly at Pentecost, as did the first Christians, and they added to the gift they then received by loyally following His workings, by labouring and suffering everything, if only they might bring others to Christ, by fiery charity and burning zeal. Whither has fled that Spirit now? Lord Jesus, kindle in us that fire which Thou camest to send on earth, and which Thou didst will to burn vehemently.

Ver. 17.— The flesh lusteth against the Spirit. From this the Manichæans inferred that man has two souls—one spiritual, which is good and the gift of a good god, and another carnal, which is evil and the gift of an evil god. Some philosophers, too, hold that man has two souls—one sensational, by which he feels, eats, and generates as do the beasts; and another rational, by which he reasons and understands as do the angels; and they depend for this conclusion on the contrary appetites and mental operations found in the same individual.

1. But it is certain that in man there is but one soul, and that a rational one, but which also in a special degree embraces vegetative and sensational powers. Hence, as man has in him both sets of powers, it is no wonder if he experiences contrary appetites, carrying him to diverse objects, and exciting him to action when they are present. In its powers the soul of man is twofold or rather threefold.

2. The word flesh stands by metonymy for that concupiscence which is in the flesh, impressing on it its own ideas and desires.

3. This concupiscence resides not only in the sensitive appetite, but also in the rational, as S. Augustine points out ( Conf. viii. 5); for as in the domain of desire, it excites the appetites of hunger and procreation, in the domain of self-protective instinct the passions of envy and hatred, so in the domain of reason it arouses the desire to excel and the spirit of curiosity. All our mental powers are infected by the leaven of original sin, but they are described as the flesh, because the desires of the flesh are those that are most frequently and most violently aroused, and so are the principal part of our desires, and give their name to the whole. Hence the Apostle uses the phrase "works of the flesh," i.e., of concupiscence, not only for fornication, drunkenness, and revellings, which are strictly fleshly sins, but also for such things as the service of idols and envy, which are strictly sins of the rational part of our nature.

4. The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, because it lusteth for carnal things, and the Spirit against the flesh, because it desires spiritual goods. This warfare is carried on within between the flesh and the Spirit; their forces are marshalled by the Apostle when he says, on the one side, The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, &c., and on the other, But the fruit of the Spirit is love joy, &c. Prudentius gives a vivid description of this warfare in his Psychomachia, and S. Augustine in his "Confessions" (viii. 11). Cassian ( Collat. iv . 11) describes it as follows: " The flesh delights in lust and lasciviousness; the spirit can hardly be brought to acknowledge the existence of these natural desires. The flesh seeks for sleep and food; the spirit is so engaged in fasting and watching that with difficulty it brings itself to consent to the necessities of nature. The flesh would abound in this world's goods; the spirit is content with the slenderest provision of daily bread. The flesh loves the baths, and troops of flatterers; the spirit rejoices in squalor, and in the silence of the desert. The flesh is fed on honours and praises; the spirit joys in the persecutions and injuries inflicted on it." See to the motives of grace and of nature depicted by Thomas à Kempis in his "Imitation of Christ" (lib. iii. c. 59), in his own simple but vigorous style.

The Abbot Pamenius, in his "Lives of the Fathers" (vii. 27), rightly describes concupiscence as an evil will, a devil attacking us; or, as Abbot Achilles in the same passage puts it, as a handle of the devil.

Augustine at one time thought that this warfare was waged in a sinner under the law, not in one living under grace; but he afterwards modified this opinion ( Retract. i. 24). It is beyond question that it is found in the Saints, nay, is the more fierce in proportion as they strive to live more spiritually. Accordingly, S. Augustine says ( Serm. 43 de Verbis Domini ): " The Spirit lusteth against the flesh in good men, not in evil men, who have not the spirit of God for the flesh to lust against."

Again, commenting on Psa 76:2. (A.V.), S. Augustine says: " You have to meet an attack not only from the wiles of the devil, but also from within yourself—against your bad habits, against your old evil life, which is ever drawing you to its wonted courses. On the other hand you are held back by the new life, while you still belong to the old. Hence you are lifted up by the joy of the new, you are weighed down by the burden of the old. The war is against yourself; but just where it is irksome to yourself it is pleasing to God, and where it is pleasing to God you gain power to conquer, for He is with you who overcometh all things. Hear what the Apostle saith: 'With my mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.' How with the mind? Because your evil life is hateful to you. How with the flesh? Bemuse you are beset by evil suggestions and delights. But from union with God comes victory. In part you go before; in part you follow after. Betake yourself to Him who will lift you up. Being weighed down with the burden of the old man, cry aloud and say: '0 wretched man that I am; who shall deliver me from the body of this death, from the burden which is weighing me down'—for the body which is corrupted weigheth down the soul. But why is this warfare permitted to last so long, even till all evil lusts are swallowed up? It is that you may understand that the punishment is in yourself. Your scourge is in yourself, and proceeds from yourself, and therefore your quarrel is against yourself. This is the penalty imposed on any one who rebels against God, that as he would not have peace with God he shall have war within himself. But do you hold your members bound against your evil lusts. If anger, for example, is roused, remain close to God and hold your hand. It will not do more than rise if it finds no weapons. The attack is on the side of anger; the arms, however, are with you; let the attacking force find no arms, and he will soon learn not to rise if he finds that his rising is to no purpose." Cf. my comments on Rom. vii. in fine.

These are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. You would wish to be free from the feelings of lust, anger, and gluttony, so as not to be hindered from charity, temperance, chastity, and prayer; and yet you are not free, nor can be free in this life. Or, on the other hand, you would wish to do cheerfully heroic deeds of virtue, but often you cannot, because the flesh is contrary. Anselm well says: " Your lusts do not allow you to do what you wish; do not permit them to do what they wish, and then neither you nor they will attain your ends. Although lusts rise in you, yet they are not consummated if you withhold your consent. In the same way, though there may be in you good works of the Spirit, yet they are not consummated either, because you cannot do them cheerfully and perfectly, while you have the pain of resisting your lusts."

Ver. 18 . — But if ye are led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. This anticipates a possible objection of the Galatians that they had apparently only exchanged one yoke for another heavier one, under which they had constantly to fight a tedious and irksome battle. The Apostle replies to this that if they were led by the Spirit they were not the slaves of concupiscence but its masters, and so were not under the law, inasmuch as they kept its provisions not from fear, but by spontaneously doing what it bade, and restraining the motions of concupiscence forbidden by it.

The Galatians were not, says S. Paul, under the law as a compelling force, still less under it as accusing and condemning, but they were under it as binding the conscience. Even so, however, they kept the law of their own accord, and so might be said to be outside the law, or above the law; not under it, but rather under the Spirit. This is why, after enumerating the fruits of the Spirit, he adds, Against such there is no law.

Ver. 19 . — The works of the flesh are manifest. The works that spring from the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, as I said in the note to ver. 17.

Fornication. On the works of the flesh in detail, see Jerome, Anselm, and S. Thomas.

Uncleanness. Effeminacy. The effeminate are guilty of mutual pollution, contrary to the instincts of nature.

Lasciviousness. Any wanton, and, according to Jerome, extraordinary form of lust. He adds: " The works of the married even, if not done with delicacy and modesty, as in the sight of God, and if merely for the procreation of children, come under the Apostle's description of uncleanness and lasciviousness." This, of course, must be understood of mortal sin; cf., e.g., the act of matrimony is performed otherwise than nature dictates, or if its consummation is purposely prevented; for then both are guilty of mortal sin, excluding them from the Kingdom of heaven. Otherwise lust in the married is only venial.

Ver. 20.— Wrath. Anger is the desire for revenge, and is a deadly sin when a bitter revenge is sought, or an object on which to bestow the angry feelings. It is venial only when it is instinctive, or when it aims at some slight revenge. The Apostle, therefore, is dealing here with the various sins enumerated in their highest and extremest form, for it is then only that they exclude from the Kingdom of heaven (ver. 21).

Heresies. Acts of private judgment against the teaching of the Church. These evince great temerity and presumption.

Ver. 21 . — Revellings. This seems to teach that immoderate indulgence in the pleasures of the table is a mortal sin, as it excludes from the Kingdom of heaven. On this I remark that some Theologians hold from this verse that gluttony and lust are mortal sins, not only if they impair the use of reason, but if they be excessive. They rely on the case of the rich man in the parable, who was condemned, not because he was a drunkard, but because he fared sumptuously every day; on the words of Isaiah (Isa 5:22), where woe, i.e., eternal damnation, is threatened against those who are mighty to drink strong drink; on the fact that excess in eating may be more than bestial; and they ask why should gluttony, so degrading to reason as it is, not be a mortal sin, if pollution is.

But the common opinion of doctors is in favour of a milder view, viz., that excess in eating is not a deadly sin, except when it seriously impairs the health, or causes some disease; or when a man eats with the object of vomiting, so as to commence again—and even this some hold to be not a deadly sin.

1. Note that revelings represents the Greek word κω̃μοι, which stands for the lascivious words and actions of drunkards, for obscene songs, dances, and kisses. Hence Bacchus is called Comus, and κωμάζειν is to revel, or to be wanton. Cf. notes to Rom 13:13.

2. If the word is to be understood of banquetings, then it must be also understood of them in their most extreme and finished form, when men sit at table till they are overcome with excess. Cf. Isa 28:8. As in the preceding words the Apostle subjoins variance to wrath, and heresies to seditions, and murders to envyings, so here he subjoins revellings to drunkenness, the second member in each case showing what the first tends to end in. Cf. Pro 23:20.

1. As to the opinions referred to above, I remark as follows. ( a ) to fare sumptuously is by itself a venial sin, and becomes mortal only when it leads to vomiting and similar excesses. ( b ) It also becomes a mortal sinner per accidens, i.e., when it is united to drunkenness, lust, slander, cruelty, and contempt for the poor. This last was the sin of Dives.

2. The denunciation of Isa 5:22 is directed against those who mix their drinks so as to make them more intoxicating, and who make a point of making themselves and their guests drunken, and think their hospitality disgraced if they fail in this.

3. Undoubtedly gluttony is a base thing in itself, but so are all our bodily functions; but they are not entirely contrary to right reason, unless indeed they deprive reason of its power to act. The case is different with aberrations of the generative powers. The act of copulation is ordained for a special end, and in its proper method. To defeat this, or to elude the end, is to go contrary to the workings of God, and is therefore a deadly sin.

Ver. 22.— But the fruit of the Spirit is love. The works of the Spirit are opposed to the works of the flesh, i.e., those works which are performed through the influence of the Holy Spirit, by which we merit that kingdom from which the works of the flesh exclude those who do them.

Observe that these fruits are different dispositions, or rather acts, of the different virtues—the acts that the virtues beget in the soul, such as joy and peace. Observe, too, that the Apostle does not give a complete catalogue of all these fruits, but only of the more conspicuous ones, and of such as are opposed to the works of the flesh just specified. And in the third place, notice that the first fruit of the Spirit is charity, it being the parent of all the rest.

Joy. The joy which springs from a clear conscience, one free from guilt and from mental disturbances. A contented mind is a perpetual feast. Cyprian (lib. de Disciplinâ et Bono Pudicitiæ ) says " The greatest pleasure is to have conquered pleasure; and there is no greater victory than that that is obtained over our lusts." On the other hand, the fruit of concupiscence is grief and sorrow. As Chrysostom says ( Hom. 13 in Acts ), " impure pleasure is like that obtained by a scrofulous man when he scratches himself. For to this pleasure, so short-lived, there succeeds a more enduring pain.":

Peace. The peace, says Jerome, enjoyed by the mind that is free from all passions. The pure mind, undisturbed by fear of punishments, or remorse for past sins, is in friendship with God, enjoys a wonderful calmness, and inspires its tranquillity into others, so that, as much as possible, it lives at peace with all men. This is a peace that passeth all understanding (Phi 4:7); and even if holy living brought no other reward than this, it yet would be quite sufficient of itself to stir us up to endure all sufferings, and undergo all labours.

Longsuffering. To have peace with ourselves and with others, we have need of patience to bear cheerfully every ill, especially those arising from the rough, haughty, or peevish tempers of others.

Gentleness. A man may be good and generous, and yet lack that courtesy and gentleness in word and deed which is one token of holiness. Cf. Wisd. 7:22. Hence the common people are wont to gauge a man's holiness by his gentle courtesy, and to suffer themselves to be guided in their actions by one who shows this fruit of the Spirit.

Goodness. A disposition to do kindnesses to others, goodness being much the same as beneficence. Jerome says that Zeno defines this latter thus: " Goodness is a virtue which does good to others, or a virtue from which usefulness to others springs, or a disposition which makes a man the benefactor of his fellows." This is an evident token of the Holy Spirit, and was most manifest in Christ. Cf. Act 10:38: If you have His Spirit, do harm to no one, do good to all.

Meekness. One, says Anselm, that is tractable, versatile, not self-opinionated; as opposed to one who is headstrong, who will bear no yoke, who is prompt to revenge an injury, and give blow for blow.

Faith. This, says Jerome, is a theological virtue, opposed to heresy, which makes us believe all that we ought to believe, even when opposed to nature, sense, and reason. But this faith is not so much a fruit of spiritual grace as its root and beginning. Accordingly, Anselm's explanation is better, who says that faith is loyal adherence to our promises, as opposed to dishonesty and lying. As the Holy Spirit is :steadfast, certain, sure [Wisd. vii. 23], He makes His followers, like Himself, faithful and true. Or, thirdly, faith here may be taken for the disposition to believe what others say, for the spirit that is free from suspicion and distrust, for that charity which believeth all things, for the candid, open, and receptive mind.

Modesty. Modesty is the virtue which imposes a mode or rule to all external actions, and controls our speech, laughter, sport. It proceeds from the inward power we have to control our passions. Ambrose ( 0ffic. i. 18) says. " According to our external actions the hidden man of the heart is judged. From them he is declared to be light, or boastful, or heady, or earnest, or firm, or pure, or of good judgment. " Cf. also Ecclus. 19:27. Hence S. Augustine's counsel ( Reg. 3): " In all your actions let there be nothing to offend the eyes of any one, but only what becometh holiness."

Temperance. Abstinence, says Vatablus, from food and drink, or, as Anselm says, continence, i.e., abstinence from lust. Continence differs from chastity, as war differs from peace. Hence continence is in the militant stage, and is but chastity inchoate. But it would be better to take temperance, with Aristotle, as a general virtuous habit of the soul, restraining man from all lusts and passions.  S. Jerome says: " Temperance has to do not only with sexual appetite, but also with food and drink, with anger, and menial disturbance, and the love of detraction. There is this difference between modesty and temperance, that the former is found in the perfect, of whom the Saviour says, 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,' just as He says of Himself', 'Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart.' But temperance is found in those that are in the way of virtue, who have not yet arrived at the goal; in whose minds impure thought and desires arise, but only to be checked; whose souls are polluted, but not overcome; in whom act does not follow evil suggestion. It is not enough, however, that the desires should be under the power of temperance; it must rule also over the three other emotions of sorrow, joy, and fear."

N.B.— The Greek MSS. here are imperfect, and want the word for modesty, and hence give only nine fruits of the Spirit, in which they are followed by Augustine and Jerome. On these fruits of the Spirit, see the remarks of S. Thomas in the Secunda Secundæ, of his Summa, where he deals with them in detail.

Against such there is no law. There is no law to condemn those who show these fruits of the Spirit, and accordingly those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law, as was said in ver. 18.

Ver. 24. — They that are Christ's, &c. This sets out the preceding antithesis between the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit. Two armies are ranged in battle array; but Christ's soldier crucifies his flesh with its affections and lusts, and not only these, but by fastings, hair-shirts, labours, and penances, he crucifies the corrupt flesh itself, as being the seed-ground of lust. So Anselm; but it is, better to take flesh, not properly, but as standing for the concupiscence residing in the flesh, as in ver. 17. Those who are led by the Spirit of Christ have crucified their lust, their corrupt nature with its vicious tendencies and actual vices. " They have subdued it," says S. Augustine, " out of that holy fear which abideth for ever, which makes us afraid of offending Him whom we love with all our heart and soul and mind."

Note that concupiscence here is, as it were, a soul: its affections are its faculties; its lusts are its acts. Christians crucify these, i.e., crush them with such pain as that endured by Christ when He was crucified. This they do ( a ) by the fear of hell and of God; ( b ) by reason, and a constant will, and a firm purpose of pleasing God; ( c ) by a vigilant watch over their eyes and their senses; ( d ) by prayer; and ( e ) by fastings, watchings, and other acts of austerity.

Ver. 25 . — If we live in the Spirit. Ifwe have this inward life of grace, let us live outwardly as the Spirit dictates. The Greek word used here denotes to follow a settled plan or order. Cf. notes to chap iv. 25. But according to Chrysostom and Theophylact, it is an exhortation to follow the rule of the Spirit of Christ, and not deviate into the ways of Judaism.

Ver. 26 . — Let us not be desirous of vain-glory. Whoever seeks the praises of men seeks a vain thing. He pursues a bubble, swollen by wind, but void of all substance. The only true and lasting glory which alone can satisfy the mind, is with God.  S. Jerome says: " They are desirous of solid glory who seek the approval of God, and that praise which is due to virtue."

Provoking one another. To broils, lawsuits, and other contests. The thirst for praise and eminence gives birth to these rivalries and to envy: while Pompey will not brook an equal, nor Caesar a superior.

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Gal 5:11

The cross will cause offense to the proud and self-righteous—those whose understanding is darkened. To those who understand their need of grace (the humble), it is a tree of life.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Epistle To The Galatians

Probable Date a.d. 56 Or 57

By Way of Introduction

It is a pity that we are not able to visualize more clearly the time and place of writing this powerful polemic against the Judaizers who were trying to draw away from the evangelical gospel the churches of Galatia. The data are not clear as in the Thessalonian and Corinthian Epistles. There are many things that can be said, but few are decisive. One is that the Epistle was written about seventeen years after Paul’s conversion, adding the three years of Gal_1:18 and the fourteen of Gal_2:1, though not insisting on the full number in either case. Unfortunately we do not know the precise year of his conversion. It was somewhere between a.d. 31 and 36. Another thing that is clear is that the Epistle was written after the Conference in Jerusalem over the Judaizing controversy to which Paul refers in Gal_2:1-10 and after the subsequent visit of Peter to Antioch (Gal_2:11-14). The natural interpretation of Acts 15:1-33 is to understand it as the historical narrative of the public meetings of which Paul gives an inside view in Gal_2:1-10. Not all scholars agree to this view, but the weight of the argument is for it. If so, that rules out the contention of Ramsay and others that Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s Epistles. It was written then after that Conference which took place about a.d. 49. It seems clear also that it was written after the Epistles to the Thessalonians (a.d. 50-51) which were sent from Corinth.

Did Paul mean by Galatia the Roman province as he usually does or does he make an ethnographic use of the term and mean the real Celts of North Galatia? Luke uses geographical terms in either sense. Certainly Paul preached in South Galatia in his first mission tour. See note on Act_16:6 for the discussion about the language there as bearing on his going into North Galatia. By " the churches of Galatia" Paul can mean the whole of Galatia or either South or North Galatia. The various items mentioned, like the illness that led to his preaching (Gal_4:13), " the first time" or " formerly" (Gal_4:13), " so quickly" (Gal_1:6), are not conclusive as to time or place. If Paul means only the South Galatian Churches (Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia), then the Epistle, even if two visits had been made, could come some time after the second tour of Act_16:1. The place could be Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. Even so room must be made for the seventeen years after his conversion plus the interval thereafter (some twenty years in all). If Paul includes North Galatia, the time would be more easily handled (the twenty years required from a.d. 31 to 36 to a.d. 51 to 57) and the place could be Ephesus, Philippi, or Corinth. Special treatises on the date of Galatians have been written by Askwith (1899), Round (1906), Steinmann (1908), Weber (1900)

Lightfoot held that the similarity of Galatians to Romans (written from Corinth spring of a.d. 56 or 57) naturally argues for the same general period and place. It is a possible hypothesis that, when Paul reached Corinth late autumn or early winter of A.D. 55 or 56 (Act_20:1.), he received alarming reports of the damage wrought by the Judaizers in Galatia. He had won his fight against them in Corinth (I and II Corinthians). So now he hurls this thunderbolt at them from Corinth and later, in a calmer mood, sends the fuller discussion to the church in Rome. This hypothesis is adopted here, but with full recognition of the fact that it is only hypothesis. The language and the topics and the treatment are the same that we find in Romans. Galatians thus fits in precisely between II Corinthians and Romans. It is a flaming torch in the Judaizing controversy. This Epistle was the battle cry of Martin Luther in the Reformation. Today it has served as a bulwark against the wild criticism that has sought to remove the Pauline Epistles from the realm of historical study. Paul is all ablaze in this Epistle with indignation as he faces the men who are undermining his work in Galatia.

JFB: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:13-24; Gal 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (Gal 3:19); POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes Gal 4:26; Gal 6:7; JUSTIN MARTYR, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to Gal 4:12; Gal 5:20.

The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA" (Gal 1:2), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by ALFORD), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (Gal 4:14-16). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (Act 16:6; Gal 1:8; Gal 4:13; see on Gal 4:13; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (Act 18:23). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (Gal 4:8-9), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:1, Gal 3:3; Gal 5:2-3; Gal 6:12-13). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (Gal 5:11, Gal 4:16, compare with Gal 2:17); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (Gal 1:10), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted.

His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Gal 1:11-19; Gal 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (Gal. 3:1-4:31), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:1-6:18). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (Gal 1:9; Gal 4:16; Act 18:23); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (Gal 6:11 : a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in Gal 2:14-21, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men.

There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia.

The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Gal. 1:1-24; Gal 3:1-5) and tenderness (Gal 4:19-20), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself.

The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Act 15:1, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in Gal 2:1. Further, as Gal 1:9 ("as we said before"), and Gal 4:16 ("Have [ALFORD] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (Act 18:23), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). Gal 4:13, "Ye know how . . . I preached . . . at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and Gal 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (Act 18:23; Act 19:1, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [ALFORD]. CONYBEARE and HOWSON, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (Act 20:2-3), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on Gal 1:6, for BIRKS'S view. PALEY [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument.

JFB: Galatians (Outline)

• SUPERSCRIPTION. GREETINGS. THE CAUSE OF HIS WRITING IS THEIR SPEEDY FALLING AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL HE TAUGHT. DEFENSE OF HIS TEACHING: HIS APOSTOLIC CALL INDEPENDENT OF MAN. (Gal. 1:1-24)
• HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21) Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Act 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY].
• REPROOF OF THE GALATIANS FOR ABANDONING FAITH FOR LEGALISM. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VINDICATED: THE LAW SHOWN TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROMISE: BELIEVERS ARE THE SPIRITUAL SEED OF ABRAHAM, WHO WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US TO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH. (Gal. 3:1-29)
• THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED: ILLUSTRATION OF OUR SUBJECTION TO THE LAW ONLY TILL CHRIST CAME, FROM THE SUBJECTION OF AN HEIR TO HIS GUARDIAN TILL HE IS OF AGE. PETER'S GOOD WILL TO THE GALATIANS SHOULD LEAD THEM TO THE SAME GOOD WILL TO HIM AS THEY HAD AT FIRST SHOWN. THEIR DESIRE TO BE UNDER THE LAW SHOWN BY THE ALLEGORY OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR GOSPEL LIBERTY. (Gal. 4:1-31) The fact of God's sending His Son to redeem us who were under the law (Gal 4:4), and sending the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6), confirms the conclusion (Gal 3:29) that we are "heirs according to the promise."
• PERORATION. EXHORTATION TO STAND FAST IN THE GOSPEL LIBERTY, JUST SET FORTH, AND NOT TO BE LED BY JUDAIZERS INTO CIRCUMCISION, OR LAW JUSTIFICATION: YET THOUGH FREE, TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER BY LOVE: TO WALK IN THE SPIRIT, BEARING THE FRUIT THEREOF, NOT IN THE WORKS OF THE FLESH. (Gal. 5:1-26) The oldest manuscripts read, "in liberty (so ALFORD, MOBERLEY, HUMPHRY, and ELLICOTT. But as there is no Greek for 'in,' as there is in translating in 1Co 16:13; Phi 1:27; Phi 4:1, I prefer 'It is FOR freedom that') Christ hath made us free (not in, or for, a state of bondage). Stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage" (namely, the law, Gal 4:24; Act 15:10). On "again," see on Gal 4:9.
• EXHORTATIONS CONTINUED; TO FORBEARANCE AND HUMILITY; LIBERALITY TO TEACHERS AND IN GENERAL. POSTSCRIPT AND BENEDICTION. (Gal. 6:1-18)

TSK: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Galatians, or Gallograecians, were the descendants of Gauls, who migrated from their own country, and after a series of disasters, got possession of a large district in Asia Minor, from them called Galatia (Pausanias, Attic. c. iv). They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked, and used for arms only a buckler and sword; and the impetuosity of their attack is said to have been irresistible. Their religion, before their conversion was extremely corrupt and superstitious; they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods, under the name of Adgistis; and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war. Though they spoke the Greek language in common with almost all the inhabitants of Asia Minor, yet it appears from Jerome that they retained their original Gaulish language even as late as the fifth century. Christianity appears to have been first planted in these regions by St. Paul himself (Gal 1:6; Gal 4:13); who visited the churches at least twice in that country (Act 16:6; Act 18:23). It is evident that this epistle was written soon after their reception of the gospel, as he complains of their speedy apostasy from his doctrine (Gal 1:6); and as there is no notice of his second journey into that country, it has been supposed, with much probability, that it was written soon after his first, and consequently about ad 52 or 53. It appears that soon after the Apostle had left them, some Judaizing teachers intruded themselves into the churches; drawing them off from the true gospel, to depend on ceremonial observances, and to the vain endeavour of " establishing their own righteousness." It was in order to oppose this false gospel that St. Paul addressed the Galatians, and after saluting the churches of Galatia, and establishing his apostolic commission against the attacks of the false teachers, he reproves them for departing from that gospel which he had preached to them, and confirmed by the gift of the Holy Ghost - proves that justification is by faith alone, and not by the deeds of the law, from the example of Abraham, the testimony of Scripture, the curse of the law, the redemption of Christ, and the Abrahamic covenant, which the law could not disannul - shows the use of the law in connection with the covenant of grace; concludes that all believers are delivered from the law, and made the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ; illustrates his inference by God’s treatment of the Jewish church, which he put under the law, as a father puts a minor under a guardian; shows the weakness and folly of the Galatians in subjecting themselves to the law, and that by submitting themselves to circumcision they become subject to the whole law, and would forfeit the benefits of the covenant of grace; gives them various instructions and exhortations for their Christian conduct, and particularly concerning the right use of their Christian freedom; and concludes with a brief summary of the topics discussed, and by commending them to the grace of Christ.

TSK: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gal 5:1, He wills them to stand in their liberty, Gal 5:3, and not to observe circumcision; Gal 5:13, but rather love, which is the sum of the law; Gal 5:19, He reckons up the works of the flesh, Gal 5:22. and the fruits of the Spirit, Gal 5:25. and exhorts to walk in the Spirit.

Poole: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 5

MHCC: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The churches in Galatia were formed partly of converted Jews, and partly of Gentile converts, as was generally the case. St. Paul asserts his apostolic character and the doctrines he taught, that he might confirm the Galatian churches in the faith of Christ, especially with respect to the important point of justification by faith alone. Thus the subject is mainly the same as that which is discussed in the epistle to the Romans, that is, justification by faith alone. In this epistle, however, attention is particularly directed to the point, that men are justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses. Of the importance of the doctrines prominently set forth in this epistle, Luther thus speaks: " We have to fear as the greatest and nearest danger, lest Satan take from us this doctrine of faith, and bring into the church again the doctrine of works and of men's traditions. Wherefore it is very necessary that this doctrine be kept in continual practice and public exercise, both of reading and hearing. If this doctrine be lost, then is also the doctrine of truth, life and salvation, lost and gone."

MHCC: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gal 5:1-12) An earnest exhortation to stand fast in the liberty of the gospel.

(Gal 5:13-15) To take heed of indulging a sinful temper.

(Gal 5:16-26) And to walk in the Spirit, and not to fulfil the lusts of the flesh: the works of both are described.

Matthew Henry: Galatians (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians

This epistle of Paul is directed not to the church or churches of a single city, as some others are, but of a country or province, for so Galatia was. It is very probable that these Galatians were first converted to the Christian faith by his ministry; or, if he was not the instrument of planting, yet at least he had been employed in watering these churches, as is evident from this epistle itself, and also from Act 18:23, where we find him going over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples. While he was with them, they had expressed the greatest esteem and affection both for his person and ministry; but he had not been long absent from them before some judaizing teachers got in among them, by whose arts and insinuations they were soon drawn into a meaner opinion both of the one and of the other. That which these false teachers chiefly aimed at was to draw them off from the truth as it is in Jesus, particularly in the great doctrine of justification, which they grossly perverted, by asserting the necessity of joining the observance of the law of Moses with faith in Christ in order to it: and, the better to accomplish this their design, they did all they could to lessen the character and reputation of the apostle, and to raise up their own on the ruins of his, representing him as one who, if he was to be owned as an apostle, yet was much inferior to others, and particularly who deserved not such a regard as Peter, James, and John, whose followers, it is likely, they pretended to be: and in both these attempts they had but too great success. This was the occasion of his writing this epistle, wherein he expresses his great concern that they had suffered themselves to be so soon turned aside from the faith of the gospel, vindicates his own character and authority as an apostle against the aspersions of his enemies, showing that his mission and doctrine were both divine, and that he was not, upon any account, behind the very chief of the apostles, 2Co 11:5. He then sets himself to assert and maintain the great gospel doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, and to obviate some difficulties that might be apt to arise in their minds concerning it: and, having established this important doctrine, he exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, cautions them against the abuse of this liberty, gives them several very needful counsels and directions and then concludes the epistle by giving them a just description of those false teachers by whom they had been ensnared, and, on the contrary, of his own temper and behaviour. In all this his great scope and design were to recover those who had been perverted, to settle those who might be wavering, and to confirm such among them as had kept their integrity.

Matthew Henry: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle comes to make application of his foregoing discourse. He begins it with a general caution, or exhortation (Gal 5:1), which he afterwards enforces by several considerations (Gal 5:2-12). He then presses them to serious practical godliness, which would be the best antidote against the snares of their false teachers; particularly, I. That they should not strive with one another (Gal 5:13-15). II. That they would strive against sin, where he shows, 1. That there is in every one a struggle between flesh and spirit (Gal 5:17). 2. That it is our duty and interest, in this struggle, to side with the better part (Gal 5:16, Gal 5:18). 3. He specifies the works of the flesh, which must be watched against and mortified, and the fruits of the Spirit, which must be brought forth and cherished, and shows of what importance it is that they be so (Gal 5:19-24). And then concludes the chapter with a caution against pride and envy.

Barclay: Galatians (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.

I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was

in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey

money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine

with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let

me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that

I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because

of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my

heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.

I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My

military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.

Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo,

Galloniuson." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,

36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col 2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

Paul Under Attack

Someone has likened the letter to the Galatians to a sword flashing in a great swordsmanhand. Both Paul and his gospel were under attack. If that attack had succeeded, Christianity might have become just another Jewish sect, might have become a thing dependent upon circumcision and on keeping the law, instead of being a thing of grace. It is strange to think that, if Paulopponents had had their way, the gospel might have been kept for Jews and we might never have had the chance to know the love of Christ.

PaulApostleship Attacked

It is impossible for a man to possess a vivid personality and a strong character like Paul and not encounter opposition; and equally impossible for a man to lead such a revolution in religious thought as he did and not be attacked. The first attack was on his apostleship. There were many to say that he was no apostle at all.

From their own point of view they were right. In Act_1:21-22 we have the basic definition of an apostle. Judas the traitor had committed suicide; it was necessary to fill the blank made in the apostolic band. They define the man to be chosen as one who must be "one of these men who were with us during all the time our Lord went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day he was taken from us" and "a witness of the Resurrection." To be an apostle a man must have companied with Jesus during his earthly life and have witnessed his Resurrection. That qualification Paul obviously did not fulfil. Further, not so very long ago he had been the arch-persecutor of the Christian Church.

In Gal_1:1 Paul answers that. Proudly he insists that his apostleship is from no human source and that no human hand ordained him to that office, but that he received his call direct from God. Others might have the qualifications demanded when the first blank in the apostolic band was filled; but he had a unique qualification--he had met Christ face to face on the Damascus Road.

Independence And Agreement

Further, Paul insists that for his message he was dependent on no man. That is why in Gal 1-2 he carefully details his visits to Jerusalem. He is insisting that he is not preaching some second-hand message which he received from a man; he is preaching a message which he received direct from Christ. But Paul was no anarchist. He insisted that, although his message was received in entire independence, it yet had received the full approval of those who were the acknowledged leaders of the Christian Church (Gal_2:6-10 ). The gospel he preached came direct from God to him; but it was a gospel in full agreement with the faith delivered to the Church.

The Judaizers

But that gospel was under attack as well. It was a struggle which had to come and a battle which had to be fought. There were Jews who had accepted Christianity; but they believed that all Godpromises and gifts were for Jews alone and that no Gentile could be admitted to these precious privileges. They therefore believed that Christianity was for Jews and Jews alone. If Christianity was Godgreatest gift to men, that was all the more reason that none but Jews should be allowed to enjoy it. In a way that was inevitable. There was a type of Jew who arrogantly believed in the idea of the chosen people. He could say the most terrible things--"God loves only Israel of all the nations he has made." "God will judge Israel with one measure and the Gentiles with another." "The best of the snakes crush; the best of the Gentiles kill." "God created the Gentiles to be fuel for the fires of Hell." This was the spirit which made the law lay it down that it was illegal to help a Gentile mother in her sorest hour, for that would only be to bring another Gentile into the world. When this type of Jew saw Paul bringing the gospel to the despised Gentile, he was appalled and infuriated.

The Law

There was a way out of this. If a Gentile wished to become a Christian, let him become a Jew first. What did that mean? It meant that he must be circumcised and take the whole burden of the law upon him. That, for Paul, was the opposite of all that Christianity meant. It meant that a mansalvation was dependent on his ability to keep the law and could be won by his own unaided efforts; whereas, to Paul salvation was entirely a thing of grace. He believed that no man could ever earn the favour of God. All he could do was accept the love God offered him by making an act of faith and flinging himself on his mercy. The Jew would go to God saying, "Look! Here is my circumcision. Here are my works. Give me the salvation I have earned." Paul would say:

"Not the labours of my hands

Can fulfil thy lawdemands;

Could my zeal no respite know,

Could my tears for ever flow,

All for sin could not atone:

Thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,

Simply to thy Cross I cling;

Naked, come to thee for dress;

Helpless, look to thee for grace;

Foul, I to the fountain fly;

Wash me, Saviour, or I die."

For him the essential thing was, not what a man could do for God, but what God had done for him.

"But," the Jews argued, "the greatest thing in our national life is the law. God gave that law to Moses and on it our very lives depend." Paul replied, "Wait one moment. Who is the founder of our nation? To whom were the greatest of Godpromises given?" Of course, the answer is Abraham. "Now," went on Paul, "how was it that Abraham gained the favour of God? He could not have gained it by keeping the law because he lived four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses. He gained it by an act of faith. When God told him to leave his people and go out, Abraham made a sublime act of faith and went, trusting everything to him. It was faith that saved Abraham, not law; and," Paul continues, "it is faith that must save every man, not deeds of the law. The real son of Abraham is not a man racially descended from him but one who, no matter his race, makes the same surrender of faith to God."

The Law And Grace

If all this be true, one very serious question arises--what then is the place of the law? It cannot be denied that it was given by God; does this emphasis on grace simply wipe it out?

The law has its own place in the scheme of things. First, it tells men what sin is. If there is no law, a man cannot break it and there can be no such thing as sin. Second, and most important, the law really drives a man to the grace of God. The trouble about the law is that because we are sinful men we can never keep it perfectly. Its effect, therefore, is to show a man his weakness and to drive him to a despair in which he sees that there is nothing left but to throw himself on the mercy and the love of God. The law convinces us of our own insufficiency and in the end compels us to admit that the only thing which can save us is the grace of God. In other words the law is an essential stage on the way to that grace.

In this epistle Paulgreat theme is the glory of the grace of God and the necessity of realizing that we can never save ourselves.

FURTHER READING

Galatians

E. D. Burton, Galatians (ICC; G)

G. S. Duncan, The Epistle to the Galatians (MC; E)

D. Guthrie, Galatians (NCB; E)

J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle to the Galatians (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC : International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

The Personal Relationship (Gal_5:1-12)

Christian Freedom (Gal_5:13-15)

The Evil Things (Gal_5:16-21)

The Lovely Things (Gal_5:22-26)

Constable: Galatians (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

"The most uncontroverted matter in the study of Galatians is that the letter was written by Paul, the Christian apostle whose ministry is portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles."¹

The Apostle Paul directed this epistle to the churches of Galatia (1:2), and he called its recipients Galatians (3:1). However who these people were and where they lived are problems that have proved difficult to pinpoint.

The traditional opinion held that the recipients lived in the geographical district known as Galatia located in the northern part of the Roman province called Galatia in Asia Minor.² This view holds that Paul founded these churches on his second missionary journey after the Spirit forbade him to preach in the province of Asia (Acts 16:6). Paul could have written this epistle then during his third journey either from Ephesus about 54 A.D. or from Corinth about 57 A.D. The main arguments for this "North Galatian theory" are as follows. The popular use of the term "Galatians" usually signified people in this area. Second, Luke normally referred to geographical districts rather than Roman provinces in Acts. Third, there is some similarity between the Galatians as Paul referred to them in this epistle and the Gallic inhabitants of northern Galatia. Fourth, Paul travelled through this region during his second journey (Acts 16:6-8).

The more popular view today maintains that Paul wrote to the churches located in the Roman province of Galatia that he founded on his first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:38-39, 46, 48; 14:3, 8-10).³ The arguments for this "South Galatian theory" are as follows. Acts 16:6 and 18:23 offer no support to the theory that Paul made a trip to the northern part of provincial Galatia. Second, there is no specific information about the northern Galatian churches in Acts. Third, the geographic isolation of the North Galatia district makes a visit by Paul improbable. Fourth, Paul usually referred to provincial titles in his writings. Fifth, the name "Galatians" was appropriate for the southern area. Sixth, the mention of Barnabas in Galatians 2 suggests that the Galatians had met him. Seventh, the absence of a North Galatian representative in the collection delegation referred to in 1 Corinthians 16:1 implies that it was not an evangelized area. Eighth, the influence of the Judaizers was extensive in South Galatia.

If Paul wrote this epistle to the churches of South Galatia, he probably did so at one of two times. If Paul's visit referred to in Galatians 4:13 is the same one described in Acts 16:6, he must have written this epistle after the Jerusalem Council (i.e., in or after 49 A.D.). Nevertheless it seems more likely that Galatians 4:13 refers to the visit described in Acts 14:21, so Paul must have written before the Jerusalem Council (i.e., before or in 49 A.D.). Assuming the earlier date Paul probably wrote Galatians from Antioch of Syria shortly after his first missionary journey and before the Jerusalem Council.⁴ Another less likely possibility is that he wrote it from Ephesus during his third missionary journey.⁵

The dating of the epistle affects the occasion for writing. Assuming the South Galatian theory and an early date of writing, Paul wrote mainly to stem the tide of Judaizing heresy to which he referred throughout the letter. He mentioned people who opposed him in every chapter (1:6-7; 2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-13).

The identity of the Judaizers is also important. Their method included discrediting Paul. The first two chapters of Galatians especially deal with criticisms leveled against him personally. His critics appear to have been Jews who claimed to be Christians and who wanted Christians to submit to the authority of the Mosaic Law and its institutions. They probably came from Jerusalem and evidently had a wide influence (cf. Acts 15). One man seems to have been their spokesman (3:1; 5:7, 10) though there were several Judaizers in Galatia as the many references to "them" and "they" scattered throughout the epistle suggest.⁶

Message⁷

Probably the most distinctive impression one receives from this epistle is its severity. Paul wrote it with strong emotion, but he never let his emotions fog his argument. His dominant concern was for truth and its bearing on life.

Compared with the Corinthian correspondence Galatians is also corrective. However the tone is very different. There is no mention here of the readers' standing in Christ or any commendation of them.

The introduction is rather cold and prosaic with no mention of thankfulness. Paul begins at once to marvel at the Galatians' apostasy (1:6-9; cf. 3:1-5; 4:8-11). Even tender sentiments seem to rise from a very troubled heart (4:19-20). Obviously that of which Paul wrote in this letter was of utmost importance to him.

He was not dealing with behavior, as in Corinthians, so much as belief, which is foundational to behavior.

Galatians has been called the Manifesto of Christian Liberty. It explains that liberty: its nature, its laws, and its enemies. This little letter has at various times through history called God's people out of the bondage of legalism back into the liberty of freedom. Luther loved it so much he called it his wife.

The greatest value of this letter is not found in its denunciations but in its enunciations. We must not be so impressed with the fiery rhetoric and dramatic actions of Paul that we fail to understand the reasons underlying what he said and did.

Galatians' central teaching is a proclamation concerning liberty. It is a germinal form of the Epistle to the Romans, which Paul wrote 8 years later in 57 A.D.

Three sentences will state its major revelations.

First, the root of every Christian's Christianity is God's supply of His Holy Spirit to that person (3:5, 14). One receives new life by receiving the Holy Spirit by faith at conversion. Nothing other than faith is necessary for salvation. To affirm that one must be circumcised or baptized to receive life is to proclaim the worst of heresies. New life comes by faith alone. What makes Christians different is God indwelling us.

Second, the culture (medium) in which every Christian's Christianity grows is the desires of God's Spirit who indwells us (5:17). When a Christian has life by faith he or she is free from all other bondage: that of the flesh, and that of rites and ceremonies. (By "flesh" I mean our sinful human nature.) He has power to master the flesh, and he has found life apart from rites and ceremonies, so he is free from these. However, his liberty is not license to sin. God's Spirit enables the Christian to obey. Circumcision or baptism does not make anyone able to obey God. We can only obey God in the power of God's Spirit. In short, we are free to obey God, not to disobey Him, when the Spirit dwells within us. God's life in us bears fruit if we cooperate with Him. But if we conflict with Him it does not.

Third, the fruit that every Christian produces is the evidence of God's Spirit triumphing over his flesh (5:22). The essence of this fruit is love. The works of the flesh are the fruit of a religion that does not have the life-giving Spirit indwelling its members (i.e., ritualism). Fruit issues from life; works issue from ritualism.

The Galatians upset Paul exceedingly because whenever we add anything to faith for salvation inevitably we neglect faith. If we make something beside faith supreme, we establish a rite (e.g., baptism). When we establish a rite, practice of the rite becomes the message of religion and we divorce morality from religion. There is no motivation for righteous living. This is one difference between Christianity and all other religions. All other religions have rites, ceremonies, and creeds, but no life. Consequently there is no vital connection in these religions between belief and morality. We see that all kinds of sin result from the tragedy of adding something to the one responsibility of faith (e.g., Roman Catholicism).

Galatians is not only a proclamation, it is also a protest.

It protests against preachers of another gospel (1:8-9). These words of Paul are not only a curse, they are a statement of fact. One who preaches another gospel substitutes falsehood (which issues finally in the works of the flesh) for the truth (which issues finally in the fruit of the Spirit). Get the gospel straight before you finish your study of Galatians.

Galatians also protests against the receivers of another gospel (5:4). To add to faith is to trust ceremony, which is to deny Christ, which is to be cut off from Christ, which is to fall from grace. Ceremonies such as baptism and the Lord's Supper have a proper place in Christianity, but to make them necessary for justification is to deny Christ. A person is justified only when he or she says sincerely, "Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling."

Galatians also protests against those who practice the deeds of the flesh, which result from a false gospel (5:21). They will not inherit God's kingdom. Their reward will be less than it would be if they did not practice the deeds of the flesh.

This letter warns us against adding any rite or ceremony or observance to faith to obtain God's acceptance. Such a practice cuts off those who rely on the ritual from Christ. Dr. William Culbertson used to say, "It is very hard to tell when the accretions to faith make faith invalid." We all struggle with this difficulty in our evangelism.

It also warns us against changing horses in midstream. That is, it warns us against trusting in faith for justification, but then concluding that the only way to be sanctified is to observe rites, ceremonies, or other observances. Having begun salvation by the Spirit we will not attain God's goal for us by the flesh. The life of the Spirit must remain the law of the Christian.

We may compare the Christian life to a three-stage Saturn rocket.

Here is another way to think of salvation. We can chart it showing the relationships of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Justification is solely an act of God that takes a moment. Sanctification is a joint enterprise between God and the Christian that takes a lifetime. Glorification is another act of God alone that takes only a moment.

I would summarize the message of the book as follows. Salvation is by God's grace through faith plus nothing. We will deal with these issues more in detail in our study of the book.

Outline⁸

I. Introduction 1:1-10

A. Salutation 1:1-5

B. Denunciation 1:6-10

II. Personal defense of Paul's gospel 1:11-2:21

A. Independence from other apostles 1:11-24

1. The source of Paul's gospel 1:11-17

2. The events of Paul's early ministry 1:18-24

B. Interdependence with other apostles 2:1-10

C. Correction of another apostle 2:11-21

III. Theological affirmation of salvation by faith 3:1-4:31

A. Vindication of the doctrine ch. 3

1. The experiential argument 3:1-5

2. The Scriptural argument 3:6-14

3. The logical argument 3:15-29

B. Clarification of the doctrine ch. 4

1. The domestic illustration 4:1-11

2. The historical illustration 4:12-20

3. The biblical illustration 4:21-31

IV. Practical application to Christian living 5:1-6:10

A. Balance in the Christian life ch. 5

1. Living without the Law 5:1-12

2. Living without license 5:13-15

3. Living by the Holy Spirit 5:16-26

B. Responsibilities of the Christian life 6:1-10

1. Toward sinning Christians 6:1

2. Toward burdened Christians 6:2-5

3. Toward teachers 6:6-9

4. Toward all people 6:10

V. Conclusion 6:11-18

Constable: Galatians

Galatians

Bibliography

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Andrews, Mary E. "Paul and Repentance." Journal of Biblical Literature 54:2 (June 1935):125.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Daily Study Bible series, 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1962.

Barrett, C. K. Freedom and Obligation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Bauckham, Richard. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (January 1979):61-70.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Betz, H. D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Blass, F., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January--March 1986):37-45.

Boice, James Montgomery. "Galatians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Brown, J. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. Marshallton, Del.: Sovereign Grace, 1970.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1982; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Burton, Ernest deWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Donald K. "Galatians." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 587-612. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academic Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chismar, Douglas E. and Raush, David A. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at Large. Reprint ed. Inverness, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1981.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Cosgrove, Charles H. "The Law Has Given Sarah No Children." Novum Testamentum 29:3 (July 1987):219-35.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

De Haan, M. R. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, 1960.

DeMar, Gary. The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction. Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988.

Denney, James. The Death of Christ. 4th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913.

Dickason, C. Fred. From Bondage to Freedom. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1963.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by Marcus Dods.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Eadie, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James and Klock Christian Publishing Co., 1977.

Ellicott, Charles J. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, with a Revised Translation. Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1896.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fuller, David P. "Paul and Galatians 3:28." Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 9:2 (November-December 1985):9-13.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.

George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gunn, James D. G. "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)." New Testament StudiesNew Testament Studies 31:4 (October 1985):523-42.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. New Century Bible Commentary series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publishers, Ltd., 1981.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. "Sacred Violence and Works of Law.' Is Christ Then an Agent of Sin?' (Galatians 2:17)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):55-75.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Epistle to the Galatians." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1283-99. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians and Exposition of Ephesians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Hennecke, E., and Schneemelcher, W., eds. New Testament Apocraypha. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1985.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of The Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hofius, O. "Gal 1:18: historesai Kephan." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1984):73-84.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

House, H. Wayne. "Neither . . . Male nor Female . . . in Christ Jesus.'" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):47-56.

Ice, Thomas D. "An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):281-300.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by George G. Findlay.

Ironside, Harry A. Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul's Life. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Paul and The Israel of God:' An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 181-96. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Galatians, with a New Translation. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

Knox, John. "On the Meaning of Galatians 1:15." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):301-4.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 11: Galatians-Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braune, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lea, Thomas D. and Griffin, Hayne P., Jr. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lull, David J. "The Law Was Our Pedagogue': A Study of Galatians 3:19-25." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):481-98.

Lyttelton, George. Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Saint Paul. 1769. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Monarch, 1895.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Morgado, Joe, Jr. "Paul in Jerusalem: A Comparison of His Visits in Acts and Galatians." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):55-68.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

O'Brien, Peter Thomas. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. 49. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Life of Paul. London: Epworth Press, 1968.

Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra. 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Pyne, Robert A. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster Commentaries series. 9th ed. London: Methuen Co., 1922.

Raisanen, Heikki. "Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism." New Testament Studies 31(October 1985):543-53.

Ramsay, William M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899.

_____. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Society for New Testament Studies monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Translated by Henry Zylstra. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rosscup, James E. "Fruit in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):56-66.

Russell, Walter Bo, III. "Does the Christian Have Flesh' in Gal 5:13-26?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:2 (June 1993):179-87.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 1." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):341-58.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 2." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):416-39.

_____. "Who Were Paul's Opponents in Galatia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):329-50.

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.

Sampley, J. P. "Before God, I do not lie' (Gal. i.20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1976-77):477-82.

Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Scanzoni, Letha and Hardesty, Nancy. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1974.

Schmithals, Walter. Paul and James. Translated by Dorthea M. Barton. Number 46 in the Studies in Biblical Theological series. Naperville, Il.: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1965.

Schnackenburg, R. "Apostles before and during Paul's Time." In Apostolic History and the Gospel, pp. 287-303. Edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

Schweizer, E. "Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20." Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988):455-68.

Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.

Stott, John R. W. Only One Way: The Message of Galatians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. London: Macmillan and Co., 1909.

Tenney, Merrill C. Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty. Revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Thatcher, Tom. "The Plot of Gal 3:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:3 (September 1997): 401-10.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. "abba," by G. Kittel.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):334-40.

_____. "The Contrast between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Vidler, A. R. Christ's Strange Work. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1994.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ.'" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Free. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1976.

Wilkin, Bob. "Galatians 5:19-21: Who Will Inherit the Kingdom?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter (December 1987), p. 2.

_____. "Sow for It! Reaping Abundant Eternal Life as a Reward (Galatians 6:8-9)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:8 (August 1990):2.

Williams, Sam K. "Justification and the Spirit in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (February 1987):91-100.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE GALATIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Galatians, soon after St. Paul had preached the gospel to them, were seduced by some false teachers, who had been Jews, and who were for obliging all Christians, even those who had been Gentiles, to observe circumcision, and the other ceremonies of the Mosaical law. In this epistle he refutes the pernicious doctrine of those teachers, and also their calumny against his mission and apostleship. The subject matter of this epistle is much the same as of that to the Romans. It was written at Ephesus, about twenty-three years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- The Galatians were originally Gauls, who under their leader, Baennus, spread themselves over Greece, and at length passed over into Asia Minor, where they settled between Cappadocia and Phrygia, in the province afterwards called from them Galatia. It seems that St. Peter preached first in those parts; but it was only to the Jews, as my be gathered from the inscription of his first epistle, which he addresses to the Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But St. Paul was the first that preached to the Gentile inhabitants of this province. When he first preached to them, he was received as an angel from heaven, or rather, as Christ himself: he visited them oftener than once, and the Church he there formed was very considerable. It was the Jewish converts of Galatia (who, as we have before mentioned, were the spiritual children of St. Peter) that caused those troubles which gave rise to this epistle. They strongly advocated the legal observances; and making a handle of the high pre-eminence of St. Peter, they decried St. Paul, even calling in question his apostleship. They taught the necessity of circumcision, and other Mosaic rites, which the apostles then in part retained. Thus divisions were raised in this infant Church. On these accounts the apostle warmly asserts his apostleship, as being called by Christ himself. He shews that his doctrine was that of the other apostles, who, in the council of Jerusalem, four years before, testified their exemption from the legal observances. He teaches, that it is not by the law, but by faith, that the blessings of salvation are imparted to them. After establishing these more important parts of the epistle, he gives them instruction on various heads. The Greek subscription to this epistle informs us, that it was written from Rome. St. Jerome says, he wrote it when in chains. Theodoret says, it was the first epistle that St. Paul wrote from Rome. This opinion has probably been adopted from a mistaken interpretation of the text: I bear the marks of the wounds of Christ in my body. By these marks they understand chains, whilst the text equally applies to the mortifications and self-denials of a Christian. The contrary opinion is, that this epistle was written from Ephesus in the year of Christ 55. This is the more probable opinion, and is maintained by St. Gregory the Great, Ludovicus, Capellanus, Estius, Usher, Pearson, and many others. The authority of the Greek copies, in assigning the places whence the letters were written, has been long rejected by the learned. We find no such information in the more ancient Greek manuscripts of St. Germanus and Clermont, &c. (Calmet)

====================

Gill: Galatians (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS

The persons to whom this epistle is written were not such who made up a single church only, in some certain town or city, but were such of which several churches consisted, in a region or country called Galatia, as is evident from Gal 1:2 and the members of these churches seem to be chiefly, if not altogether Jews, since the apostle includes them with himself; as having been under the law, under tutors and governors, and in bondage under the elements of the world, and to whom the law had been a schoolmaster, though now they were no longer under it as such, Gal 3:23 or however, though some of them might have been originally Gentiles, yet, previous to their conversion, had become proselytes to the Jews, and now were returning to Judaism again, as appears from Gal 4:8. When and from whence this epistle was written, is not very clear and manifest: some have thought, that it was written about the time of the writing of the epistle to the Romans, and upon a like occasion; but if it was written about that time, it could not he written from Rome, as the subscription to this epistle attests, since it is certain, that when the apostle wrote his epistle to the Romans, he had never, as yet, been at Rome. Beza is of opinion, that it was written from Antioch, between the return of Paul and Barnabas thither from their first journey, and the troubles which broke out in that church, Act 14:28. But to this it is reasonably objected, that it is questionable whether there were so early any churches in Galatia at all; and if there were, it does not seem that the defection from the faith, complained of in this epistle, as yet had took place in any of the churches; for it was after this date that the troubles upon this head arose at Antioch, which seems to have been the first place, and the church there the first church the judaizing teachers practised at and upon. Some Latin exemplars testify that it was written from Ephesus; of which opinion was Erasmus; but as Dr. Lightfoot observes, the same reason is against this as the former, seeing the corruption that was got into this church was then but beginning, when the apostle was at Ephesus: it seems therefore most likely, that it was written from Rome, as the subscription in the Greek copies affirms; and which is strengthened by the Syriac and Arabic versions, seeing it seems to have been written after the apostle had made the collections, in several places, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, Gal 2:10 and when the apostasy from the faith had got to a great pitch; nor is it any objection that there is no express mention made of his bonds in it, as there is in those epistles of his, which were written from Rome; since, when he wrote this, he might have been delivered from them, as some have thought he was after his first defence; and besides, he does take notice of the marks of the Lord Jesus he bore in his body, Gal 6:17. Dr. Lightfoot places the writing of this epistle in the year and in the "fifth" of Nero; some place it in 55, and others in 58. That there were churches in Galatia very early, is certain from Act 18:23 but by whom they were planted is not so evident; very likely by the apostle, since, it is certain, both from this epistle, that he was personally in this country, and preached the Gospel here, Gal 4:13 and from Act 16:6 and if he was not the instrument of the conversion of the first of them, which laid the foundation of a Gospel church state, yet it is certain, that he was useful in strengthening the disciples and brethren throughout this country, Act 18:23. But after his departure from them, the false teachers got among them, and insinuated, that he was no apostle, at least that he was inferior to Peter, James, and John, the ministers of the circumcision; and these seduced many of the members of the churches in this place, drawing them off from the evangelical doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, persuading them that the observation of the ceremonial law, particularly circumcision, was necessary to their acceptance with God, and justification in his sight: wherefore the occasion and design of this epistle were to vindicate the character of the apostle as such; to establish the true doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; to recover those who were carried away with the other doctrines; to exhort the saints to stand fast in the liberty of Christ, and to various other duties of religion; and to give a true description of the false teachers, and their views, that so they might beware of them, and of their principles.

Gill: Galatians 5 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 5

In this chapter the apostle exhorts to stand fast in Christian liberty, and warns against the abuse of it; and directs to shun various vices, and encourages, to the exercise of several graces, and the observance of several duties; and concludes with a caution against vain glory, provocation to wrath, and envy: and whereas, in the latter part of the preceding chapter, he had made it appear that the believers under the Gospel dispensation were free from the bondage of the law, he begins this with an exhortation to continue steadfastly in the liberty of the Gospel; and the rather, since it was what Christ obtained for them, and bestowed on them; and to take care, that they were not again brought under the bondage of the ceremonial law, particularly the yoke of Circumcision, Gal 5:1, and dissuades from submitting to it, by observing, that it tended to make Christ unprofitable to them, Gal 5:2, and that it laid them under an obligation to keep the whole law, Gal 5:3, and that it made Christ wholly useless to them; and that such who sought for justification by obedience to the ceremonial law were apostates from the Gospel of the grace of God, Gal 5:4, as also by showing, that it was contrary to the general faith and expectation of the saints, who were looking for and expecting eternal glory and happiness, not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Gal 5:5, nor were circumcision or uncircumcision of any avail, but the true faith in Christ, which shows itself by love to him and to his people, Gal 5:6, and likewise by reminding them how well they set out at their first conversion, and proceeded; nor had they any to hinder them from obeying the truth, and therefore it was shameful in them to go back to the beggarly elements they had first relinquished, Gal 5:7, nor was the present opinion they had imbibed, of God that called them, or what they received when first effectually called by grace, but what had been since taken up, Gal 5:8, and whereas it might be objected, that it was only in a single article concerning the ceremonial law, and which was, embraced only by a few persons, and therefore not to be regarded, the apostle puts them in mind of a proverb, that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and therefore not to be connived at, Gal 5:9, however, a little to mitigate the sharpness of his reproof, he expresses his good opinion and confidence of them, that upon a mature consideration of things, they would not be otherwise minded than they formerly had been, or he now was; and lays the blame of all upon the false teacher, or teachers, that troubled them, and who should bear their own judgment or condemnation, Gal 5:10, and whereas it was insinuated, that the apostle himself had preached up circumcision as necessary to salvation, he removes this calumny by observing, that were it true, he would not suffer persecution as he did, nor would the Jews be offended at his preaching as they were, Gal 5:11, and then out of zeal for the glory of God, and hearty affection to the Galatians, he wishes those false teachers that troubled them with their pernicious doctrines were cut off either by the Lord, or from the church, Gal 5:12, and next he directs to the right use of Christian liberty, to which they were called; and cautions against the abuse of it; that they should not use it as an occasion to the flesh, but, on the contrary, serve one another in love, Gal 5:13 giving this as a reason, because love is the fulfilling of the law, Gal 5:14, whereas a contrary spirit and conduct are attended with pernicious consequences, even the destruction of each other, Gal 5:15, and therefore advises them to walk in the Spirit, whose fruit is love, and then they would not fulfil the lust of the flesh, Gal 5:16, for these two, flesh and Spirit, are contrary the one to the other, and the Spirit hinders the performance of the lusts of the flesh, Gal 5:17, besides, such who give up themselves to the conduct of the Spirit, and are led thereby, are not under the law, the bondage of it, nor liable to its curse, Gal 5:18, and having made mention both of flesh and Spirit, he takes notice of the works and fruits of the one, and of the other, by which they are known; and as for the works of the flesh he observes, that they are manifest, and gives an enumeration of them in "seventeen" particulars; and to deter from them declares, that whoever lives in the commission of them, shall not inherit the kingdom of God, Gal 5:19, and as for the fruits of the Spirit, these are also well known by spiritual men, "nine" of which are particularly mentioned, and against which there is no law, Gal 5:22, and from the whole concludes, that such as are true believers in Christ, and are led by his Spirit, and have the fruits of it, have the flesh with its affections and lusts crucified, Gal 5:24, and ends the chapter with some exhortations to walk in the Spirit, and not be ambitious of worldly honour, nor provoke one another to wrath, nor envy each other's happiness, Gal 5:25.

College: Galatians (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

Since the earliest days of the concept of a commentary series jointly authored by church of Christ and Christian church scholars, I have eagerly anticipated the College Press NIV Bible Commentary. The dream of Don DeWelt was to bring brothers back together in a project honoring our common devotion to Scripture. Exegesis of the text should know no party line, but should interpret fairly and honestly what God said. Participating as a writer in this series is an honor and a challenge.

Having taught Galatians and Ephesians for twenty years in the Bible college classroom, I know that many good commentaries already exist. All the books that have been written provide a wonderful platform on which to build. No quantity of footnotes could adequately reflect my gratitude for the research of great scholars of the past.

I especially want to express my thanks to my family and my co-workers in Christ for the support and inspiration they have given me. Experience is teaching me that no member of the Lord's body functions well alone. In addition, I feel gratitude to a host of zealous students who have brought their enthusiasm and fresh insights to the halls of Ozark Christian College. Learning from students is one of the best ways to learn!

Out of my study of Galatians and Ephesians, I have learned to love the Lord and his people. Viewing God's children as my dear brothers and sisters is a rich blessing. Especially dear to me are the precious saints of God whose love has reached beyond the sectarian lines. Yearning to taste the freedom for which Christ has set us free, they have dared to love with God's own love. Out of their sincere faith and unfeigned love, it is possible to catch a glimpse of heaven. Until the family is reunited around the throne, may God bless you.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1). This freedom rings out in every page of Galatians, Paul's great "Magna Charta of the Christian faith." This epistle is our charter of Christian freedom, our declaration of independence from slavery

to the law.

Throughout the history of the church the message of Galatians has been needed to free men from chains of false doctrine. When the early Judaizers tried to bind men to the old commandments from Sinai, Galatians set them free. When the apostate church of the Dark Ages tried to bind men to a papal system of salvation by penance and works, Galatians set them free. When modern legalists try to bind us to a joyless religion of superior "rightness," Galatians sets us free.

Martin Luther was moved by Galatians to sound the reveille of the Reformation. He said, "The Epistle to the Galatians is my epistle; I have betrothed myself to it: it is my wife." His commentary on Galatians cost him more labor, and was more highly esteemed by him, than any of his other works. For Luther, as for every age, the simple gospel of the message of Galatians was a mighty weapon in the arsenal of freedom.

THE WRITER

No epistle can lay more claim to being a genuine product of the hand of Paul than can Galatians. As Kümmel says, "That Galatians is a genuine, authentic Epistle is indisputable." Paul claims to be the author (1:1 and 5:2), and the early church accepted this claim without reservation. The style and message are clearly Pauline. "His mind, character, and accents are to be seen in every paragraph."

THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

While the authorship is beyond dispute, there is considerable controversy regarding the recipients of this letter. They are called "the churches in Galatia," but just what is meant by this?

During the third century B.C. some barbarian people of Celtic origin migrated to the inner plateau of Asia Minor and established a kingdom there. Since some of the Celtic people were known in France as the Gauls, these people in Asia Minor were distinguished as the "Gallo-Graecians," from which the name "Galatians" comes.Their realm was centered around Ancyra (the modern capital of Turkey) in the northern highlands area.

After the Romans conquered this territory, it was combined in 25 B.C. into a large province containing the districts to the south, Lycaonia and Isauria, as well as parts of Pisidia and Phrygia. The newly created province was called Galatia, and included the cities known to us from Paul's missionary journeys - Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra.

When Paul spoke of "Galatia," did he refer to ethnic Galatia (the tribal area limited to the north), or did he refer to political Galatia (the province which also included the districts to the south)? The traditional view, still shown on most Bible maps, is the "north Galatian theory." The view favored by most commentaries today is the "south Galatian theory."

The North Galatian Theory

If this view is correct, then Paul must have visited Galatia on the second missionary journey (Acts 16:6, although without preaching) and started churches there on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23). However, Acts says nothing of the cities there, nor of Paul's preaching.

Possible arguments to support the "North Galatian theory" include the following:

1. "Galatia" meant a place inhabited specifically by the Gauls.

2. In Acts, Antioch is called "Pisidian," while Lystra and Derbe are cities of Lycaonia.

3. The Phrygians would have objected to being called Galatians, since it would remind them of their subjection to Rome.

4. Paul could not have addressed Lycaonians or Pisidians as "O foolish Galatians."

5. The fickle nature of the recipients suits the Gallic people.

6. "The region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) appears to mean that Galatia was quite distinct from Phrygia.

7. There is no mention in Galatians that Paul experienced strong opposition when he preached there.

The South Galatian Theory

In the 1880s and 1890s William Ramsay did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor. His careful research not only proved that Luke was an accurate historian; it also laid the foundation for the "south Galatian theory." This is the view favored in this commentary.

If this view is correct, then Paul visited cities of Galatia on all three of his missionary journeys. These were among the first churches he started. The cities would include Pisidian Antioch and Iconium (where Paul met resistance from the Jews), and Lystra (where Paul was first welcomed, and then stoned).

Possible arguments to support the "south Galatian theory" include the following:

1. If Galatia does not include the cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, then we know absolutely nothing about the churches which were so important in Paul's life and to which such an important epistle was sent.

2. The expression "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) is best understood as the area through which Paul would go when he left Lystra and Iconium, "the Phrygio-Galatian" territory.

3. Paul normally uses Roman imperial names for the provinces, and the Roman "Galatia" included the south.

4. "Galatians" was the only word available that would include the people of all four cities (just as "British" includes people who are Welsh, Scottish, and English).

5. "The Galatian churches" participated in the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1), and Paul's assistants included

two South Galatians - Gaius of Derbe and Timothy of Lystra (Acts 20:4).

6. The northern area was not on the common trade routes, and it is unlikely that Paul would have made a difficult journey to reach such an out-of-the-way place "because of an illness" (Gal 4:13).

7. Judaizers are known to have followed Paul through the cities of the south.

8. Paul's words "you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God" (4:14) could be connected with his reception at Lystra, where they wanted to worship him and Barnabas.

9. The early church developed along the great trade routes, and these went through the south parts of Galatia, not the north.

10. Barnabas is mentioned three times (2:1, 9, 13), as though he is known to the readers, and he accompanied Paul only on the journey that went to the cities of the south.

THE DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

The date and place of writing are somewhat dependent on the choice of north or south Galatia as the destination. If the "north Galatian theory" is correct, the epistle could not have been written until after Paul arrived in Ephesus on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23-24). This would produce a date no earlier than A.D. 52-55. Lightfoot proposed that the letter was written from Corinth, perhaps A.D. 56-57.

If one is convinced that the "south Galatian theory" is correct, a much wider range of dates is possible. Galatians could have been written as early as A.D. 48, even before the Jerusalem Conference.However, as our discussion of Gal 2:1-10 will show, it is more likely that the Jerusalem Conference had already taken place when Paul wrote the letter. This would move the probable date to A.D. 50 or later. It is likely that Galatians stands among the first of Paul's epistles.

The decision about the date and place of writing does not affect the interpretation of Galatians; in fact, the reverse is true. The exegesis of the text determines the decision about date and place. One cannot say, "Paul wrote at such and such a date; therefore, the text means this." Our decision about date and place comes from indications in the text itself (Gal 1:6 "so quickly deserting"; 2:1 "fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem"; 2:11 "when Peter came to Antioch"; 4:13 "because of an illness I first preached to you"; 4:20 "I wish I could be with you now.") What we know for certain about Paul's circumstances we will learn from the text.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit . Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.

. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

. New Testament Words . London: SCM Press, 1964.

Bartchy, S. Scott. First Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1973.

Barrett, C. K. "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians," Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur Ernst Käsemann . Tübingen/Gottingen, 1976.

Barth, Markus. Romans . Oxford: University Press, 1980 (reprint).

Bauckham, R. J. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament , Issue 2 (1979) 61-70.

Bauer, Walter; William F. Arndt; and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Blakely, Given. What the Bible Says About the Kingdom of God . Joplin: College Press, 1988.

Blass, F.; A. Debrunner; and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Boice, James Montgomery. Galatians . The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Brandenburger, Egon. "Cross," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:391-403.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "ajllhgorevw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:260-263.

Bundrick, David R. "TA STOICHEIA TOU KOSMOU," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (Sept 1991) 353-364.

Burton, E. D. The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921.

Carson, D. A.; Douglas J. Moo; and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 (reprint).

Cullmann, Oskar. "Pevtro", Khfa'"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:100-112.

Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament . New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Deissmann, Adolph. Light from the Ancient East (Eng. Trans.). New York: Harper, 1927.

DeVries, C. E. "Paul's 'Cutting' Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1-12," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Duncan, George S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (MNTC). London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.

Fairweather, William. The Background of the Epistles . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Green, Michael. The Empty Cross of Jesus . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians (NCBC). London: Oliphants, 1969; revised edition 1974.

Hauck, Friedrich and Siegfried Schulz. "pornhv," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:579-595.

Holly, David. A Complete Categorized Greek-English New Testament Vocabulary . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSM 35). Cambridge: University Press, 1979.

Hurtado, L. W. "The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians," Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Issue 2 (Oct. 1979) 53.

Jewett, Robert. "Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1971) 198-212.

Johnson, Robert L. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (LWC). Austin: R. B. Sweet, 1969.

Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves . San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971 (reprint).

Liddell, Henry George; Robert Scott; and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek English Lexicon . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957 (reprint).

Lohse, Eduard. "proswpolhmyiva," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:779-780.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians (WBC). Dallas: Word, 1990.

Matera, Frank J. Galatians (Sacra Pagina). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.

McCasland, S. Vernon. "The Greco-Roman World," The Interpreter's Bible Vol. 7, pp. 75-99. New York: Abingdon, 1951.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Michaelis, Wilhelm. "pavqhma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) V:930-935.

Moule, C. F. D. Worship in the New Testament . Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961.

Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Moulton, W. F. and A. S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Müller, Dietrich. "Apostle," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:126-135.

Parker, Pierson. "Once More, Acts and Galatians." Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 175-180.

Pinnock, Clark H. Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.

Oepke, A. "mesivth"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) IV:598-624.

Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949 (reprint).

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Sampley, J. Paul. "'Before God, I do not lie' (Gal 1:20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1977) 477-482.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. "ajgapavw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:35-55.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today (June 20, 1975) 9-11.

Stott, J. R. W. The Message of Galatians . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968.

Strelan, J. G. "Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-examination of Galatians 6:2," Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975) 266-276.

Stumpff, Albrecht. "zh'lo"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) II:877-888.

Trench, R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953 (reprint).

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words . Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940.

Weiss, Konrad. "crhstov"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1974) IX:483-492.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

CT Christianity Today

ExpT Expository Times

DNTT Dictionary of the New Testament, by Colin Brown

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal of Studies for the New Testament

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KJV King James Version

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

NEB New English Bible

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NTS New Testament Studies

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

TEV Today's English Version

TrinJ Trinity Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Galatians (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. AUTHORITY: The Apostolic Gospel - 1:1-2:21

A. Greeting - 1:1-5

B. Paul's Astonishment - 1:6-10

C. Paul's Call by God - 1:11-17

D. Paul's Brief Meeting with Leaders - 1:18-24

E. Showdown: Conference in Jerusalem - 2:1-5

F. Apostolic Agreement - 2:6-10

G. Showdown: Conflict in Antioch - 2:11-14

H. Apostolic Conclusion - 2:15-21

II. ARGUMENTS: Law Vs. Faith - 3:1-4:31

A. Argument One: Receiving the Spirit - 3:1-5

B. Argument Two: Abraham - 3:6-9

C. Argument Three: The Curse - 3:10-14

D. Argument Four: A Human Covenant - 3:15-22

E. Argument Five: The Child-Keeper - 3:23-4:7

1. The Job of the Child-Keeper - 3:23-25

2. The Benefits for the Children - 3:26-29

3. The Full Rights of the Children - 4:1-7

4. The Folly of Turning Back - 4:8-11

F. Argument Six: Paul's Personal Plea - 4:12-20

1. Paul's Former Welcome - 4:12-16

2. Paul's Present Pains - 4:17-20

G. Argument Seven: Allegory of Hagar & Sarah - 4:21-31

III. APPLICATION: Living for Freedom - 5:1-6:18

A. Freedom or a Yoke? - 5:1-6

B. The Yeast of the Agitators - 5:7-12

C. The Essence of Law and Love - 5:13-15

D. The Acts of the Sinful Nature - 5:16-21

E. The Fruit of the Spirit - 5:22-26

F. The Law of Christ - 6:1-6

G. The Harvest of the Spirit - 6:7-10

H. Paul's Own Conclusion - 6:11-18

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV