Galatians 5

CHAPTER V

The sharp warning against accepting circumcision

Galatians 5:2

2 Language as well as substance indicate the beginning of a new paragraph. The Judaistic yoke which Paul wants the Galatians to avoid is assumed by accepting circumcision. This, of course, refers to the former Gentile Galatians. The former Jewish Galatians had been circumcised while they were still Jews; what their circumcision amounted to Paul tells them in v. 6, compare Rom. 2:28. Such Christians were to disregard their circumcision entirely.

See, I myself, Paul, declare to you that, if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! The new subject is circumcision. Ἴδε has become stereotyped since it is used also with plurals (B.-D. 144). It helps to make the statement dramatic. With the words “I myself, Paul,” the apostle puts forward all the authority at his command. There are times when this must be done. Apostolic and ministerial authority is to be used at the proper time.

In 4:10 Paul has stated what the Galatians were accepting from the Judaizers. But he did not mention circumcision; so we are forced to the conclusion that the Galatians had not yet advanced that far. Circumcision was the crucial requirement of the entire Judaistic system. It was that already in the case of all proselytes who united with the Jewish synagogues. The reason the proselytes of the gate were considered outsiders was that they had not accepted circumcision. The Judaizers had not yet gained that victory in Galatia.

The observing of Jewish holy times (4:10) could never satisfy them. Their goal was to persuade the Galatians to accept circumcision. A man placed himself under the entire Mosaic system by submitting to circumcision. Circumcision would make the defection and fall of the Galatians complete. The Judaizers knew this although we may be sure that they were very careful in working toward this goal. Paul exposes the whole issue in the most open, direct, and decisive way.

With ἐάν he vividly supposes the future case that the Galatians let themselves be circumcised. This form of condition is used, not because Paul expects this to happen, but in order to confront the Galatians with the actual results in case it does occur. Due to the common ground occupied by the middle and the passive, the latter may be used to express the idea of “subjecting oneself,” “allowing oneself or letting oneself,” for which use we have a good example here (Moulton, Einleitung 225). It is the causative (R. 816) or permissive passive: “cause yourselves or permit yourselves to be circumcised.” Paul says: “If you are going to accept that, you will inevitably lose Christ, he will profit you nothing.” R. 482, 484 explain “nothing” as a second or cognate accusative. Why not make it adverbial: “in no respect”?

But is Paul’s statement true? The Judaizers did not give up Christ and did not ask the Galatians to do so. They merely mixed the gospel with their Mosaic legalism and asked the Galatians to do the same. Yet Christ cannot be halved. Remove a fraction of Christ, and the entire profit or benefit of Christ is lost. One may mean ever so well when doing this, the result is fatal nonetheless.

This does not seem to be obvious to all Christians. Stand on Christ with both feet, and you are safe. Place one foot on something else, that something else gives way, and you fall. Christ is the entire bridge; on him you may cross safely. But if only one foot of that bridge is made something else, the whole bridge collapses. This is a case of either all or none; ninety-nine per cent Christ plus one per cent anything else is just as fatal as no per cent of Christ. All the saving power lies in him alone, and no less than all of it saves. “Christ” = all that he is in his person and his work. In 4:11 Paul says that he has perhaps labored in vain among the Galatians. He now advances the thought—Christ would be in vain.

Galatians 5:3

3 Paul adds with full solemnity: Moreover, I testify once more to every man letting himself be circumcised that he is debtor to do the whole law. The preceding, “I, Paul, say to you” is now varied to “I testify.” A witness is to tell the truth, and this Paul does in the most simple and direct way. With δέ Paul adds another, a clearly corroborating fact. “Once more” or “again” states that Paul has testified to the Galatians at a previous time. We have no difficulty in determining the time when this had been done; it certainly happened during Paul’s second tour through Galatia when he brought with him the resolution adopted by the Jerusalem conference which asked the Gentile Christians to abstain from certain things for their own sakes and for the sake of their Jewish fellow Christians (Acts 16:4, 5). All the Gentile Christians received this conference resolution with joy. Paul certainly told the Galatians how the resolution had been passed, how it disavowed the Judaistic demand for circumcision and submission to the Mosaic regulations (Acts 15:1, 5). Then Paul also had the call to testify fully to the Galatians what submission to circumcision involved.

It is Paul’s way of writing to change from the plural of v. 2 to the singular and at the same time from the specific “you” to the general “every man.” The latter brings out the fact that what Paul testifies to the Galatians is true for every Christian no matter when or where he may be living. The passive participle is again causative or permissive. Its tense is properly present, not because the act is extended, but because of “every man,” no matter when a man subjects himself to circumcision in obedience to the Judaizers.

Every man of this kind “is debtor to the whole law.” It was ever thus: circumcision made one an out-and-out Jew. Circumcision was not only a part of the Jewish ceremonial law like observance of the Jewish holy days and seasons (4:10), it ever involved the observance of the whole system just as Paul states. The aorist “to do” involves completeness. Even a Jew who did not do the whole law was a recreant, spurious Jew because of the fact that he was circumcised and did not discharge his resultant obligation. That is why the pivotal point of the Jerusalem conference was the Judaistic demand for circumcision (Acts 15:1, 5), it involved all else. That is why circumcision was so incompatible with Christ and the gospel.

R. 1062 explains the infinitive as a complement to the noun: “debtor for doing.” It is often so used with substantives (R. 1076). To accept the Judaistic circumcision meant to abandon the liberty for which Christ liberated us and to go back under the yoke of slavery (v. 1), to exchange Isaac for Ishmael.

Galatians 5:4

4 Paul once more states his warning in a direct personal way. You get severed from Christ, such of you as try to be declared righteous in connection with law; you get to fall from grace. Paul now broadens his thought. In v. 3 he states that it is Judaistic circumcision which subjects to the Mosaic legal system, “the law.” But anything that is “law” (no article) is useless for obtaining justification (“without works of law,” Rom. 3:28), yea, worse than useless, it is actually fatal. It is difficult to translate κατηργήθητεἀπό so as to conserve the force of the verb, the tense, and the preposition. Paul uses the verb in all manner of connections (again in v. 12) which necessitates various translations, all of which are more or less inexact. The basic idea is, “to make idle, inactive” so that nothing results; the preposition adds the idea that this action removes “away from Christ,” separates from him.

Both aorists are timeless (Moulton, Einleitung 218) but still punctiliar and thus different from timeless presents. Our versions render them quite well. The A. V. translates the sense of the first verb well, the R. V. the sense also of the preposition, and both versions reproduce the timelessness of both aorists by means of the English present. The punctiliar idea is, however, not conserved; we try to convey it: “you get severed—get to fall,” such of you as try to be declared righteous in connection with law. The moment one even tries to be justified in connection with anything in the nature of law, this is what happens, then and there the terrible damage is done. It all happens in an instant: completely out with Christ and fallen from grace.

These are clashing opposites: anything in the nature of law—Christ and his grace (“law,” 3:12; “grace,” 1:3). They are as exclusive as the two aorists indicate. It is impossible to combine them. Although it is worded in the second person, the statement is general, and thus, of course, applies to the Galatians. The sense is: if there are any such among you Galatians. Paul neither asserts nor denies that there are such.

The present tense is conative (R. 880): “try to be declared righteous,” try to obtain a favorable verdict from God. The R. V.’s “would be justified” comes much closer to this conative present than the A. V.’s “are justified.” The thing is impossible, any attempt to do it not only fails but causes defection from Christ and fall from grace. The trying is both hopeless and itself fatal. Ἐν = “in connection with,” and the connection is the fact that we drop Christ and grace by starting to do works of law (v. 3), whether these be Jewish or some other kind.

Paul states the straight facts as they always are and always will be. The result is ever the same. The Galatians are put face to face with it by an effective warning.

Galatians 5:5

5 Over against all such who seek justification in connection with law Paul places the emphatic ἡμεῖς with an elucidating “for.” For we on our part by means of the spirit out of faith wait for the hope of righteousness. This is what we are doing, the direct opposite of what such as those mentioned in v. 4 are trying to do. By changing to “we” Paul includes himself and the Galatians as being people like himself. Nor does he divide the Galatians into two classes, those who are one with him and those who have fallen from grace. He gives up none of them. What he says with “if” and “such as” in v. 2 and 4 is a warning and not a statement of a sad actuality regarding the Galatians.

We hesitate to render the simple dative as do our versions, “through the Spirit,” or as do many commentators, “in the Spirit.” True, the Greek does not need the article with “Spirit” when it names this divine Person. The thought is also attractive: Spirit, the causa efficiens salutis, the objective means; faith, the causa apprehendens, the subjective means. One may then expand the thought and say much about us who have the Spirit and about all that our having him means. But note that none of the four nouns has the article, that the four are consequently to be understood in their general qualitative sense. Can the one noun then refer to a person?

Again, this is an unmodified dative without a preposition such as “through” or “in”; it is to be construed with the verb “await” and denotes means. Now the analogy of Scripture never makes the Holy Spirit a means that we use just as Christ is not a means or medium used by us. Is this analogy set aside here?

Then consider the thought itself: “we await with or by means of the Holy Spirit,” which is so incongruous a combination that we decline to make it. This is simply “spirit.” “Law” deals with outward works; all our waiting is inward, spiritual. It is done “by means of spirit,” by means of that in us which has spirit quality. Nor do we thus lose the Holy Spirit, for he alone produces in us what can be truly called “spirit,” the opposite of flesh.

Our waiting grows “out of faith,” which is again qualitative, again opposed to “law” in v. 4, coordinate with “spirit” but not to be construed: “with a spirit (derived) from faith” although we admit that this construction, too, has its attraction. Faith is the source of our ardent waiting, which is done entirely by means of spirit in a truly spiritual way.

What arrests attention most of all is the fact that Paul speaks of the “hope of righteousness” and of our awaiting this hope. To wait for a hope is, of course, to await its fulfillment. Hope and waiting go together (Romans 8:25). One also sees that “hope of righteousness” contains either the objective or the appositional genitive: hope for righteousness or hope (objective) which consists of righteousness, with little to choose between the two. The genitive also makes the anarthrous “hope” definite. But does faith not now possess righteousness, i. e., the quality produced by the divine verdict of acquittal?

How can we still be waiting for and hoping for righteousness? The answer is not difficult. Now our righteousness is due to the secret verdict pronounced by God in heaven the moment we believe. Our assurance of that secret verdict is the Word of Scripture which we must believe. We await the great hope when, on judgment day, the heavenly Judge will pronounce that verdict face to face with us before the whole universe. Then our great hope of righteousness will be consummated.

This is what Paul opposes to “such as try to be declared righteous in connection with law.” Vain is their trying. Neither now nor on that day can they possibly attain it. Faith produces the sure hope, the glad waiting which can never make ashamed. “We are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24), a hope that does not make ashamed (Rom. 5:5) at the last day.

Galatians 5:6

6 Paul returns to circumcision as such with another γάρ. For us Christians circumcision amounts to nothing; the one thing that is everything for us is faith. For in connection with Christ Jesus neither circumcision amounts to anything nor foreskin, but faith working by means of love. Paul does not say, “for the Christian” but, “in connection with Christ Jesus.” Apart from him, outside of the circle which he forms, men may value either foreskin or circumcision as they please; but in the saving sphere or the connection with Christ Jesus (office and person) neither has strength, i. e., neither is effective in any way. To imagine that circumcision is effective is to hug a delusion.

At one time this was a great issue, namely when the gospel advanced from the Jews to the Gentiles; it is now dead save as it involves the great principle set forth by Paul that all legalism is abolished root and branch by gospel liberty. The church is still troubled on this score and men like Paul and Luther are needed to keep it free. The present-day Jews, of course, still circumcise, but they in no way affect the church.

One thing and one alone is effective. It is already stated in the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” which is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, and that is faith. But why does Paul add “working or showing itself operative and effective by means of love”? Because he has in v. 5 referred to the final judgment and our hope for that day. The whole Scriptures testify that in the great judgment the Judge will refer to the works of faith. As such evidence the works will substantiate the public verdict of the Judge, and all the universe will declare that verdict just.

There is a sharp contention with the Roman Catholic Church regarding the voice of this participle. This church insists that it is the passive and stakes its doctrine of the fides caritate formata on this voice and calls faith that is not so formed by love a fides informata. Love and works thus give form and substance to faith; to the Romanist, faith without these is informata, without form and void. The R. V. margin supports this claim with its Romanizing translation: “wrought through love.” But this verb is never passive in the New Testament; it appears only in the active and in the middle voice, and when it is used in the middle it never has an object or a personal subject (C.-K. 441; B.-P. 412). This is the linguistic side of the matter. The middle is always = vim suam exserere.

Then, too, to the Romanist “faith” is not faith in the Biblical sense of the term. The Romanist doctrine is not understood until one understands what Romanist faith is. Rome hurls its anathema against the teaching that faith consists of knowledge, assent, and fiducia, confidence or trust. It cancels the first and the third factors, especially the third. It leaves only assent, namely blanket assent to whatever Rome teaches, whatever that may be. Such assent is indeed informata and needs something to make it formata, to give it form and substance.

Rome declares that this substance is love and good works. When assent has enough of these it is fully formed. Since we seldom know when we have enough we cannot be certain of salvation. Hence also justification is not forensic, not instantaneous and complete but medicinal, gradual, for the most part completed in purgatory; any certainty is doubtful in this life according to Rome’s own teaching.

Luther uses strong language when he writes on this subject: “Therefore faith is not such an otiosa qualitas, that is, a thing so entirely useless, lazy, dead, that it may lie hidden in the heart of a mortal sinner like light, useless chaff or like a fly in wintertime sticking in a crack so long until the dear sun comes to it and wakes and makes it alive.”

There is logic in the Roman Catholic doctrine. If faith is, indeed, only assent, then it certainly needs a good deal to fill out its form. Rome says that what it needs are love and works. Many others besides Rome have conceived faith to be only an opinion, something in the intellect, and thus also preach love and works as the real essentials. Many opponents of Rome live on Roman contraband although they deny the source of their goods. In any dispute about what faith does it is essential to lay bare with exactness what “faith” is conceived to be.

A Romish, a Pelagian, a Semi-Pelagian, a synergistic, a rationalistic or modernistic “faith” is not the faith of Scripture. It is a waste of effort to dispute about the predications made about such a “faith.” Get back to faith itself, define that from the Scriptures; then true agreement is reached, and the predications will fall in line.

Paul here makes “love” (see 2:20, the verb) the means (διά) with which faith works. The means is certainly not the faith, still less its real forma, contents, or substance. Faith is ever complete in itself. No fiducia or trust is without the person or the object which it trusts. It is a cup that is never empty but is always filled with Christ Jesus. It may be a small or a large cup, it is never an empty one. The entire value and the power of faith lie in this its divine content. And since this is Christ who loved us and died for us, faith ever brings forth its fruit of love. How can a heart embrace him who is supreme love without glowing with love and love’s energy? Circumcision and foreskin, any legalistic outward observances? They fade away automatically.

Paul’s final warnings and his confidence in the Galatians

Galatians 5:7

7 The subject of circumcision has been concluded. Paul begins dramatically with a rhetorical question. In v. 2 it is he, Paul himself, who makes a declaration to the Galatians; now he asks them a searching question. He has had to correct them regarding circumcision and regarding faith. Should this be necessary for people such as they are? You were running well. Who cut in on you for you to start not to obey the truth?

The course of Christian faith is often likened to a race for a prize. The Greeks had their great games, and, as is the case in our athletic era, everybody knew all about them. Thus Paul’s figure is natural although the running of races is vastly older than the Greek contests. The imperfect pictures the Galatians as running well with every prospect of reaching the goal.

Now the question of shocked surprise which is similar to 3:1. The tenses are important here, an aorist in the main verb, a present in the infinitive. Somebody did cut in on the Galatians, but thus far only to induce them to begin not to obey the truth. The present infinitive is inchoative. The Judaizers had not as yet succeeded. The usual translation is, “who did hinder you”; R., W.

P., has the more expressive, “who cut in on you.” The picture is not one of halting the runners but one of throwing them off their course. One may run with all his might, but if he gets off the course he is automatically disqualified and might as well never have run at all. The course is narrow and never broad so as to allow running over to works of law. The runners do not lay out the course, nor can they change it while they are running.

Thus far Paul has employed a figure; now he turns to the reality. This is constantly done, thereby he makes the figure self-interpretative. This method of Paul’s writing is often not appreciated, is perhaps even criticized; yet it is both beautiful and certainly most valuable. We must get clear in regard to the use of μή with the infinitive. Zahn finds it so incompatible, so contrary to Rom. 15:22 which has no negative that he resorts to a very inferior reading and makes a new and a separate sentence with the help of this reading: Solchem, was Wahrheit is, nicht zu gehorchen, (darin) gehorchet niemandem. But while this μή is not necessary and thus is at times not used it is frequently found with verbs of hindering and denying; it is pleonastic (R. 1177; B.-D. 429), “a redundant negative repeating the negative notion of the verb just as double negatives carried on the force of the first negative” (R. 1094).

Why let this common negative move us to a change of reading? B.-D. 488, 1b also alters the reading without a convincing reason.

Paul purposely states the matter mildly by using this negative. “For you to start not to obey the truth” is really a litotes which is milder because it states only what was being omitted instead of what was being committed. “The truth” is also far better than the reading “truth” without the article, for this is the truth of the gospel, which is decidedly definite as it should be in this closing admonition. This truth marks out the narrow track for the runners; it is run by faith that is active by means of love. Obedience to this truth is the essential, even the elementary requirement.

Galatians 5:8

8 The mild negative form of expression continues. This persuasion (is not derived) from him who calls you. It has a far different source which is sinister, indeed, if Paul should name it. Our English loses the paronomasia in πείθεσθαι and ἡπεισμονή, “to be persuaded (i. e., and thus to obey)—the persuasion.” The agents in the passive infinitive are the Judaizers, and “the persuasion” is their activity which is not “from him who is calling you,” not from God. These Judaizers are not God’s agents. That ought to be enough for the Galatians. Theirs is an alien voice; read John 10:4, 5 for a fine commentary. The article is plainly demonstrative: “this persuading or persuasion,” that indicated by the preceding infinitive.

So rare is this hapaxlegomenon that it affords opportunity for those who, like Zahn and B.-D., alter the reading to dispute its meaning and to make the word passive: Folgsamkeit instead of persuasion, i. e., obedience on the part of the Galatians instead of persuading coming from the Judaizers. B.-P. 1025 rightly rejects a passive sense for this word since this supposed passive sense is based on an altered reading.

Galatians 5:9

9 There is a close connection when Paul adds: A little leaven leavens the entire lump. The object is placed before the verb in the Greek for the sake of emphasis. Only the beginning of wrong obedience had been made in Galatia. It was like introducing a little yeast into a mass of dough. Let the Galatians not close their eyes to the danger. Give a little yeast time and it will penetrate the entire dough. The expression may be a proverb or common saying. Paul’s use of it here and in 1 Cor. 5:6 has led to its being quoted frequently.

Here the little leaven refers to doctrine and not to persons. In 1 Cor. 5:6 the application is made to a different matter (see that passage). Those who refer it to persons point to the singular “who” in v. 7 and to ἐγώ and to ὁταράσσων in v. 10 which designate persons. But they disregard “not to obey the truth” in v. 7 and “this persuasion” in v. 8, both of which refer to doctrine which is insidious like spreading yeast and seeks to penetrate all that the Galatians had hitherto believed. The whole lump = the Galatians and all of the doctrine they had hitherto believed.

To say that the Judaistic doctrine was not a small bit of yeast but a great mass of doctrine, the whole of which opposed the whole gospel, and that, therefore, doctrine cannot be referred to, overlooks what Paul is saying. He is not placing the one doctrinal system over against the other but is issuing the warning: Principiis obsta, resist the beginnings. The Judaizers were not so foolish as to unload their entire doctrine upon the Galatians at one time; they injected it little by little. Paul refers to the little leaven that had already been injected, the fact that the Galatians had begun to observe times (4:10) although they had not as yet yielded to circumcision. If it be not stopped, that little would eventually leaven and alter everything.

To speak of persons is beside the mark, i. e., that a few false teachers are enough to pervert the entire church. We know nothing about the number of the Judaizers in Galatia, in fact, the number is irrelevant. These teachers, whatever their number, could corrupt the entire church only by their doctrine and in no other way. Instead of this reference to persons it would be rather profitable to note the aptness of likening yeast to evil persuasion. Both work silently, insidiously. The figure of yeast is used in a good sense only once (Matt. 13:33), otherwise it is used in an evil sense (Matt. 16:6–12; 1 Cor. 5:6; here).

It is only too true: the admission of a little false doctrine into the true is highly dangerous. One infected apple infects many others; the many sound ones never make the infected one sound. A little yeast alters the entire dough; and the entire dough never turns the yeast into dough. In our day especially, when so much is known about spores, ferments, and bacteriology, Paul’s homely warning should be most effective. This proverb should be death to doctrinal indifference. But many still imagine that a little deviation from the truth of the gospel will do no harm to them and to those who hear them. They even pride themselves on harboring at least some deviation and, while they want their food and their drink pure, cast their flings at the reine Lehre.

Galatians 5:10

10 Not until this point has been reached does Paul contrast the persons, and now he does it plainly. Here, too, is a warning that is plain and direct. I on my part am confident regarding you in the Lord that you will mind nothing else; but he that disturbs you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

The opposition, “I on my part—he who disturbs you,” is marked. The second perfect is used with present force: “I am confident,” and this confidence of Paul’s regarding the Galatians is not merely light optimism that exists in his own mind but is connected with the Lord who will give power and efficacy to Paul’s words.

Paul is confident “that you will mind nothing else.” This “nothing else” does not refer to the contents of the entire epistle but to what has just been said in v. 9. The Galatians will see that a little Judaistic leaven will eventually leaven the whole lump, that they must fear the very beginnings they have already made and end them forthwith.

Paul has his confidence in the Lord. But what Paul says about his own sure confidence implies that “he who disturbs you” is also to have his confidence, one that is also connected with the Lord, namely, that “he shall bear his judgment,” no matter who he may be, of what quality or in what class (R. 727). The idea that Paul has in mind a single individual, the leader among the Judaizers, cannot be upheld. In 1:7 we have the identical designation in the plural; compare 4:17; 5:12; 6:12, etc.

The indefinite relative clause “whosoever he is” is intended for any disturber. Every disturber of the Galatians shall bear his judgment for his nefarious work. Excuses, pleas of good intention, etc., shall not avail. The future tense is prophetic. Paul uses the indeterminate κρῖμα, “judgment,” and does not say outright κατάκριμα, “condemnation.” He does not mean that this will not be an adverse judgment. Paul leaves this in God’s hands. It may come in part already in this life, but will come surely and fully at death.

This is a passage which the disturbers of the church might well take to heart. It is no light thing to scatter the leaven of false doctrine, it never was. Paul, however, writes this to the Galatians in order to warn them. Will they continue to listen to men whose doom is awaiting them? If they do so, will they not come to share that doom?

Galatians 5:11

11 The thought of the judgment awaiting these Judaizers brings to Paul’s mind the foul and even fatuous means to which they resort when they are spreading their leaven. Recently, while he was in Lystra, Paul had taken Timothy as his assistant and, in order to enable him to work among Jews, had circumcised Timothy, Acts 16:3. Paul had also very likely not objected when Jewish Christians chose to circumcise their male children and had not made an issue of it as long as no legalistic and Judaistic ideas were connected with such circumcisions. Thus Jewish Christians also continued to eat kosher as James himself did. This was a matter of liberty. But, it seems, the Judaizers sought to make capital of this liberty in support of their legalistic demand for circumcision.

Did Paul thus not preach circumcision by his own acts? These Judaizers were blind to the common fact that, when two do the same thing, it may not be the same thing. Paul blasts them with the most withering irony. But I on my part, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Has the deathtrap of the cross been abolished? Would that they who unsettle you would even have themselves castrated!

The condition of unreality deals with an assumed reality. Paul did not preach circumcision. What he preached on that score, v. 6 restates. The Judaizers asserted, on the grounds indicated, that Paul did still preach circumcision. This alleged fact Paul picks up and for a moment speaks of it as being a fact. He places the pronoun forward for the sake of strong emphasis: “I on my part, if I,” etc. The address “brethren” likewise lends weight.

The statement is so silly that Paul is still preaching circumcision. Paul tears it to pieces with two questions, “Why am I still persecuted?” Why, then, are the Jews still after me? It is not necessary to assume that the Judaizers were persecuting Paul. This persecution is also actual persecution and not mere vilification such as these Judaizers launched against the absent Paul whom they had never met. The unthinkable thing is the fact that the Jews would still persecute a man who preached the central demand of Jewdom, namely circumcision. The worst persecution Paul had suffered so far was experienced at the hands of Jewish fanatics—because he preached against circumcision.

One may make the following statement a deduction with the reading ἄρα (our versions) or another question with the reading ἆρα; either is good. We regard it as a question because a question precedes. Paul is above thinking of himself alone, of his still undergoing persecution; his thought automatically reverts to Christ. The second question also rests on the assumption of fact “if”: “Has the deathtrap of the cross been abolished?”

Σκάνδαλον is the trigger stick of a trap, to which the bait is affixed, which springs the trap when the bait is touched. It has nothing to do with “stumbling block” despite our versions (on the verb see M.-M. 576). The difference is not one of the figure only but of the sense. A skandalon is a fatal, deadly thing, it kills and is intended to kill; a stumbling block (for which the Greek has a different word: πρόσκομμα) at most causes a fall from which one arises and generally designates a lesser hurt. In Rom. 9:33 the two are found together so that our versions could not repeat their usual translation. To be sure, skandalon is used metaphorically, but if we translate it “offense,” it must always be mortal, fatal offense, no less.

If I am still preaching circumcision as the Jews have always preached it, has this astounding thing then been done, has the deathtrap of the cross been abolished? Why, then these Judaizers would have all they want! “The skandalon of the cross” = 1 Cor. 1:23, “Christ crucified for the Jews a skandalon.” The cross, the crucified Messiah, is deadly to the Jew to this day. Although it is the very power of God to save (1 Cor. 1:24) by freeing us from the curse of the law in that Christ on the cross became a curse in our stead (3:13), by clinging to their law the Jews are still struck by this curse, by scorning Christ crucified have him as an odor of death unto death. At the heart of their fatal legalism is circumcision. If they could keep their legalism, if they could put into the cross something that is not atonement but only example, a great model, a so-called inspiration, the Jews would adopt the cross. Many modern Jews, as also all deniers of Christ’s deity, do this very thing.

But the skandalon cannot be abolished. The cross can be perverted, it cannot be changed. It means atonement, justification by faith, abolition of law and works of law, complete Christian liberty. No, brethren, Paul would say, the skandalon of the cross is not abolished by such a silly allegation as that I still preach circumcision.

Galatians 5:12

12 Paul’s hot indignation against these Judaizers who stoop to anything they think may further their cause is expressed in the ironic wish that they might have themselves even castrated. This still rests on the condition stated in v. 11. But the sense is not that, by having themselves castrated, they might become even holier than by being merely circumcised. The idea of holiness does not lie in the context. With their circumcision these Judaizers want to outdo Paul and take the Galatians away from him. But if they have no more to offer than Paul offers, if, as they claim, he, too, still preaches circumcision, how will they be able to outdo him?

Well, there is a way—would that they might try it! Let them have themselves castrated! Then they would, indeed, leave Paul behind who, as they say, still preaches only circumcision. But this is said with an eye to the Galatians, a fact which we should not overlook. These Judaizers, who are unsettling the Galatians in order to get them away from Paul, who boast that they have something better than he has, can outdo him only by going to the full length of their claim: if they can say that Paul still advocates circumcision they should adopt castration. How the Galatians would then admire and follow these eunuchs!

Ὄφελον is a mere particle for expressing a wish, it is developed from the imperfect ὤφελον with the infinitive by dropping the augment. Here alone it is followed by the future in order to express a wish regarding the future; elsewhere it is followed by the aorist in order to indicate a wish regarding the past, or by the imperfect in order to designate a wish regarding the present. R. 923. B.-D. 384 calls Paul’s wish fulfillable; R. 923 non-fulfillable. It all depends on how the wish is regarded.

The verb itself is the regular term for “to castrate” whether it is used alone or with a term that names the parts cut off. There is no gain in thinking of a figurative modification: cutting the Judaizers off from the congregation, from sin and error, or from the truth and the mercy of God. The form is middle and not passive, R. 809 makes it the causative middle, B.-D. 317, “let themselves be,” etc. They would, of course, castrate themselves by having the operation performed by a competent person—no issue regarding that.

The point of castration was highly effective in the case of the Galatians, who had among them the castrated priests of Cybele, a Phrygian goddess, who was by the Greeks identified more or less with Rhea, the mother of their gods. Castration appears in various other pagan cults. So these Judaizers, who had advanced to castration, would be out and out pagans! On the status of eunuchs among the Jews compare Deut. 23:1; Isa. 56:3.

The gospel of Christian liberty has thus been unfolded anew for the Galatians (3:1–5:12). In the last part of this section Paul admonishes the Galatians to drop their legalism (4:12–5:12). This brings us to the third main part of the epistle.

PART III

How the Galatians Should Use their Christian Liberty, 5:13–6:16

After the liberty itself has been unfolded for the Galatians so as to remove them from the slavery the Judaizers were seeking to impose on them, it remains necessary that Paul show how this liberty manifests and exercises itself in the Christian life. To be liberated, to be free is to act with freedom. Action is freedom’s very domain. Christian liberty, however, is always controlled; its controlling power is love. It remains liberty only when it is under this control, otherwise it becomes license which runs wild. Thus an anomaly results which Luther has put into a striking paradox (Erlangen ed. 27, 176):

“A Christian man is a free Lord over all things and subject to no one.

“A Christian man is a subservient slave of all things and subject to everyone.”

Luther learned this from Paul whose best pupil he is. The key to the paradox is love. Love makes liberty both the safest and the most valuable possession. It fills this liberty with both beauty and happiness.

Liberty exercised by means of love

Galatians 5:13

13 For you on your part, brethren, were called unto freedom; only (use) not this freedom as a starting point for the flesh, but by means of love slave for each other. “For” at the head of a paragraph = “in order to elucidate still further.” The elucidation now offered concerns the use of Christian freedom. Paul places “you” emphatically over against the Judaizers, those making it a business to unsettle you (v. 12). Whatever Paul may wish for these men, the great fact remains, and the Galatians must ever keep it before them: for their part they were called unto liberty.

The aorist states the past fact, and throughout the epistles the calling is always to be understood in the effective sense, i. e., including acceptance of the call. When the gracious gospel call won the Galatians to faith, it was entirely for freedom. The call itself was a liberation and ushered into the fullest liberty. Ἐπί with the dative is used to indicate an aim or a goal as in 1 Thess. 4:7 (B.-P. 447). The address, “brethren,” is placed after the sentence as in 4:12 and is thus less emphatic although it still marks a new section, acknowledges the Galatians, and expects them to heed.

But this fact, that they were called to freedom, is only the basic statement, the summary of the entire second part of the epistle. On this basis rests the new part regarding the use of this freedom. Paul also states this in a summary fashion, both negatively and positively. In the negative statement the verb is absent. It is not necessary that we supply a verb, yet the negative μή conveys an imperative tone. The thought is complete: for freedom, “only not this freedom as a starting point, an impetus for the flesh,” i. e., in favor of the flesh still left in us.

Here lies the danger for all the called. They are ushered into a wonderful land of freedom. Yet freedom is like a great fortune of money, it may be a great blessing if it is used aright, a curse if it is abused. It is like being a great king who must be kingly and not a tyrant. As the freedom mounts, so does the responsibility for its use. Otherwise the freedom itself disappears.

The danger lies not on the side of the reborn spirit in the Christian but on the side of his flesh, the power of sin still left in him. In a war an ἀφορμή is a basis of operation, and in the metaphorical use of the word this idea is retained. Our sinful flesh may appropriate this freedom as if it were intended for itself and may thus start turning it into license. “Only not this!” Paul writes. The flesh must be checked at the very beginning.

The positive statement is paradoxical: “but by means of love slave for each other.” Our freedom means that we must slave. It seems contradictory yet is perfect harmony. Freedom is the free exercise of love. This is the love born of faith, the love of real intelligence and understanding coupled with corresponding aim and purpose. The Greek article is quite in place although it is not needed in English. Love itself is free.

Love goes out toward its object with intelligent and purposeful devotion. Here the object is expressed by “each other,” and the devotion by the strong verb “to slave.” Compare 1 John 4:20, 21. Paul does not write that we are to be “slaves of each other” (genitive); we are God’s and Christ’s slaves. The slave of another is bound to make the other’s will his own. To slave “for each other” (dative) is to do our work for each other according to our Lord’s will.

Here we have the whole exercise of our Christian freedom. Its great medium is the love that fills us, its great activity, voluntary slaving for each other. When we exercise ourselves in this work we have freedom indeed. The reading of a few texts which have the dative: “with the love of the spirit (or Spirit)” has nothing to commend it either textually or as far as the thought is concerned. Such a dative still leaves love as the means, and the combination “the love of the spirit (Spirit)” would occur only in this variant.

Galatians 5:14

14 Luther writes on this verse: Theologia brevissima et longissima; brevissima quod ad verba et sententias attinet, sed usu et re ipsa latior, longior, profundior et sublimior toto mundo. What impressed Luther so deeply is the fact that Paul sees that the law itself establishes the gospel freedom since the free love brought forth by gospel faith freely fulfills the very heart of the law, its demand for the love the law could never achieve. That is what Paul states in words so brief, that involve amplifications so long, wide, profound, sublime as to comprise the whole law and the gospel. For the whole law stands as having been fulfilled in the one word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself!

“For” substantiates, and the marvel is the fact that the very law from which the Christian believer is free should substantiate this very freedom. Yet this becomes simple and clear the moment we stop looking at the many individual requirements of the Mosaic legal system, especially those of a temporary ceremonial nature, and see what really fulfills “the whole law,” namely love. The moment the Christian freedom from law is exercised, its one means is love, it does what love prompts down to actual slaving for others. That is the very fulfillment of the whole law as this is voiced in its own one, summary command: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself!”

Real freedom from law is not license for the flesh but slaving for others by means of love, and the law itself proves that this is freedom from law. The law should certainly be able to demonstrate who is still held as a slave by it and who has been set free from it as at last being a free man. It does this by setting up the commandment of love. A slave of the law he must remain who, despite a thousand labors in complying outwardly with other commands, fails in regard to this one which asks love. He who clings to law ever remains only such a slave, for no law ever produced love no matter how strenuously it may make this demand. But he who accepts the gospel gift which frees from law, by his freedom, if that freedom become not license, without the law achieves the whole law, its very crown, namely love.

The whole law says so since its fulfillment lies in love. This has often been put into the simple statement: “What the law demands the gospel gives.”

From one viewpoint the law and the gospel are direct opposites; hence the only salvation is freedom from the law. Yet from another viewpoint these two correspond, the one dovetails into the other although they lose their identity; hence the very love produced by the gospel freedom stands as the fulfillment of the law’s demand which is love. The law, once a tyrant, becomes the free man’s servant. Theologically expressed, this is called the third use of the law.

Observe that this was true also in the time of the Old Testament. Paul cites Lev. 19:18. The Old Testament had the gospel just as we now have it; only the form differed: then it was in the form of promise, now that promise as fulfilled in Christ. That gospel promise which was older than the law of Moses (3:17) ever wrought faith and love just as it now does. Therein the whole law was fulfilled also for those Old Testament saints, therein alone. Yes, they had the ceremonies of Moses which are now abolished since Christ has come.

They were the shadows, he the substance (Col. 2:17). But also in the Old Testament love and not in mere outward observances lay the fulfillment. Paul has elucidated this subject at length in 3:23, etc.; 4:1, etc.; also the freedom in Sarah, Isaac, etc., in 4:21, etc.

“The whole law” places this in contrast with single commandments such as those mentioned in 4:10, and especially the Judaistic demand for circumcision. Piecemeal dealings with the law lead to nothing (Matt. 23:23). The whole of it alone suffices. It is entirely “in the one word,” ἐντῷ, “namely,” the definite article makes a substantive of the quotation. Paul cites only the love to our neighbor, but this is never without the love to God (1 John 4:20, 21). In Mark 10:17 Jesus cites only the Second Table, and in Luke 10:30 he exemplifies the concept of neighbor by pointing to the good Samaritan. As regards “one another” in v. 13 and “thy neighbor” here in the commandment note Paul’s own statement in 6:10.

The perfect tense “has been fulfilled” has its present connotation so that we translate: “stands as having been fulfilled.” see Rom. 8:13; 13:10. The future indicative: “thou shalt or wilt love,” is common in legal precepts (R. 874). It is the love itself in the Christian’s heart, born of faith in the gospel, which stands as the whole law’s fulfillment despite the fact that this love still lacks so much in its outward manifestation. Yet the law cannot object on this account, for Christ has freed us from all its condemnations (v. 1), and Christ’s righteousness covers all our imperfections.

Galatians 5:15

15 The negative side of the Christian’s freedom in slaving for others by means of love is stated drastically: But if you keep biting and devouring each other, take heed lest you be consumed by each other! Freely to slave for each other is to conserve each other; to let the flesh (v. 13) have its way is to be consumed by each other. The figure is taken from the jungle and the forest where tooth and claw reign and the denizens are exterminated by each other. The first two verbs are durative: “if you go on biting and devouring”; the last is an aorist derived from ἀναλίσκω and states what the end will be: “you will be consumed.”

We note that Paul does not use negative imperatives: “Be not biting, etc.,” which, if they were expressed by present imperatives, would mean: “Stop biting,” etc. This would imply that the Galatians had, indeed, begun to bite each other. Nor does Paul use ἐάν with a condition of expectancy. This would imply that he has reason to expect such biting, etc. He uses the ordinary condition of reality which may mean that Paul conceives an actual reality and speaks of it as being real; yet it may mean only that he assumes the acts as being real in order to speak of them more drastically although the acts are not real. In other words, no conclusion as to the occurrence of actual biting and devouring in Galatia can be drawn from the conditional clause here used. This is also true with regard to the apodosis, “see to it,” which merely matches the protasis and adds nothing beyond it but means only: “then see to it.”

In regard to admonitions that involve conduct we must observe that the extreme is mentioned because it includes and intends to include all that is less down to the least. The extreme must, of course, be mentioned, for sins sometimes go that far. So the commandments forbid murder and adultery, but in Matt. 5:21, etc.; 5:27, etc., Jesus expounds and shows how these extremes include all that is less and yet of the same nature. A tiny sprout is as poisonous as the full-grown plant. So Paul mentions the extreme in order to include all that is the opposite of Christian love which serves others even to the extent of slaving for them. It will not always be necessary to slave thus, often only a kind word, a little help will be necessary in the exercise of freedom in love.

The catalog of sins listed in v. 19–21 is objective, and one should not draw from it and say that “enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions” were prevalent among the Galatians because biting and devouring are mentioned in v. 15. Paul did not include these sins in his catalog in v. 20 because they were prevalent among the Galatians, nor did he list the other sins in v. 19–21 because of their actual prevalence in Galatia. The admonitory form used in v. 15 warns against what lack of love causes. It emphasizes the admonition: “by means of love keep slaving for each other.”

We thus decline to accept the conclusion that biting and devouring were actually in progress among the Galatians at this time. Those who think that this was the case admit that this one verse alone reflects the actual bad moral condition prevailing in Galatia and expresses surprise because of that fact. We think that if such conditions were actual in Galatia, Paul would undoubtedly have written more than one line regarding them. With this one line and this condition of reality Paul points out what the reality is bound to become where the freedom of Christian love is lost. At this very time the Jews, from whom the Judaizers sprang, were biting and devouring each other. Read their history during these years and note Acts 21:38 as an incident and Acts 23:12, 13 as another; in a few more years their whole nation was no more, they had consumed each other.

Love conserves, lack of love consumes. The fact that this consuming means destruction of the bond of Christian fellowship needs no further proof.

Following the spirit and not the flesh

Galatians 5:16

16 Paul has mentioned “the flesh” in v. 13 in his preliminary admonition that our freedom must be exercised by means of love. Not to yield to the flesh means ever to follow the spirit. This is what Paul now presents. Now I say (my meaning is): Keep walking with what is spirit, and you will not carry out any craving of what is flesh. This is what Paul intends to convey to the Galatians as regards their daily life and conversation: that in thought, word, and deed they ever use what regeneration has brought to birth in them; then any stirring of what is still left in them of sinful flesh, their old depraved nature, will not be carried out into action but will be crushed in its incipiency (v. 24). The translation seeks to conserve the anarthrous nouns, all three of which are qualitative.

Throughout the rest of the chapter “spirit” and “flesh” are contrasted, the new and the old nature. We see their antagonism, the freedom of the former, their fruits in extenso, finally the flesh crucified, the spirit living on in full activity. Rendall says that throughout this section Paul has in mind “spirit” and not “Spirit”; Lightfoot says it in regard to v. 17. Our versions plus the majority of the commentators prefer “Spirit.”

All that we have already said in regard to v. 5 applies to this section. A comparison with Rom. 8:1–11 is decisive. In Romans we have “God’s Spirit,” “Christ’s Spirit,” etc., which leave no doubt as to the meaning; although the word is used seven times in Galatians, such a genitive does not appear in a single instance. Four times Paul has no article, and where he has it, the article denotes previous reference. All seven pneuma must be translated alike; our versions translate “Spirit” throughout. The commentators who follow them hurdle the difficulties that result and brush aside “spirit.”

Here and in v. 25 the simple datives denote means and ought not to be translated “in the Spirit” (A. V.), for which thought Paul would use ἐν. The analogy of Scripture shows that we never use the Spirit as a means (see v. 5), but we do so use our own “spirit.” So Paul here bids the Galatians to use in their walk and conversation what is spirit in its nature, i. e., the reborn, new man. Then when any craving, lust, evil desire of what is by nature flesh starts in them, they will not let it come to a head in action. “Flesh” and the “Holy Spirit” are not a contrast, but “flesh” and “spirit” are. Ἐπιθυμία is regularly used in an evil sense in the New Testament (C.-K. 501) although the classics use it as a vox media.

Galatians 5:17

17 The reason for this admonition is: For the flesh has cravings against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. For these lie opposed to each other so that you are not doing what you may want.

The articles in “the flesh” and “the spirit” denote previous reference. Here ἐπιθυμεῖ is a vox media because it is used also with regard to the spirit; “lusteth” (our versions) is thus not a good translation because this word is too regularly used in only an evil sense. The old nature in us wants things that are contrary to the new, and vice versa. The two natures in us thus lie in constant conflict with each other. They are not opposites that as such live far apart, each following what it craves; they lie ἀντί, face to face, in constant clashing. Paul knows of no exceptions to this fact; he is not a perfectionist.

Lightfoot recognized that ἵνα is here consecutive, and Moulton, Einleitung 333, as well as R. 998 support him and free us from the labored interpretations that operate with purpose and even make this God’s purpose. Paul says that the result of this clashing of flesh and spirit is that we do not go on doing (present, durative) what we may want to do. The indefinite relative clause means, “what we may want to do” in carrying out some craving of our flesh. The spirit in us succeeds in blocking this.

In v. 16 Paul urges the Galatians ever to walk with what is spirit and assures them that they will, indeed, not carry out any craving of what is still flesh in them. It is this context which makes v. 17 different from Rom. 7:15, etc., where the victories of the flesh are recorded. These are not denied here, but here the victories of the spirit are the subject. The fact that the flesh is also active is stated, but what it accomplishes beyond its cravings is not mentioned. This is also true in regard to v. 24. This makes plain that Paul does not here mean that what we may want according to our spirit is always blocked by our flesh (μὴποιῆτε, durative) even as this is not the fact. In the believer the spirit does, indeed, dominate; he has crucified the flesh (aorist, v. 24).

The verb ἀντίκειται cannot mean that God created the spirit and the flesh for the purpose that we should not do what we want. This view assumes the activity of three forces: we and our will, the flesh, and the spirit. God has then arranged it so that we never get to do our will but must do either what the flesh or the spirit (Spirit) dictates. A strange psychology! Regeneration renews, liberates, frees the will. The spirit = the liberated will. This liberated will is still hampered by the flesh which ever seeks to obtain control again in order once more to usurp the throne. The flesh does not succeed; we need but to keep on walking with what is spirit.

Galatians 5:18

18 Now if you are being led by what is spirit you are not under what is law, in other words, you have the gospel freedom to which you have been called. This links back into the great idea of freedom (v. 13) by showing what this freedom involves in our daily experience. To be led by what is spirit (dative of the agent) is another way of saying that we are walking with what is spirit (v. 16) save that “spirit” is now pictured as our guide while in v. 16 it was our means. Under this blessed leadership you are free men; the opposite is equally true, without it you are slaves. Rom. 8:14 is a similar statement, but there “God’s Spirit” is the leader, and the result is expressed accordingly, “sons of God.” To be sure, where “spirit” leads, “God’s Spirit” leads, for “spirit” is his creation in us. Nothing is lost by the qualitative term “spirit.”

The freedom which Paul has described to the Galatians at such length is freedom from “law,” which is equally as qualitative as “spirit.” In Rom. 6:14: “not under law” = under grace which is spiritual freedom. Both the tyranny and the curse of anything in the nature of law are thus removed. This includes the Mosaic law but also every other law. The anarthrous noun allows no restriction. The Judaizers, of course, wanted slavery under the Mosaic code, especially under its ceremonial requirements. But Paul has passed beyond this Judaistic restriction and has carried the entire subject down to its basic principle, law as such, whatever in its nature is law. This makes slaves one way or another; to be completely free from law, wholly under grace, is alone freedom indeed. John 8:32–36.

Galatians 5:19

19 Moreover, public are the works of the flesh, of which kind are fornication, uncleanness, unbridled conduct—idolatry, sorcery—enmities, strifes, jealousies, wraths—factions, splits, separate notions, envies—sprees, carousings, and the things like these, concerning which I tell you in advance even as I told you in advance that they who perpetrate such things shall not inherit God’s kingdom.

Δέ adds this catalog of vices. Works betray and advertise their source. Paul lists the actual works after speaking of “flesh craving” in v. 16. The craving produces these wicked works and others like them. Again the full outgrowth is described, but again it includes everything from the first secret craving to these complete works. Where the flesh is in full control works like this result. They show publicly what the flesh is. One does not need to speculate in regard to the flesh; look at what is “public,” open to the eyes of all. When a Christian gives way to his flesh he will head for some of these works.

In every one of Paul’s catalogs the items are carefully chosen and carefully placed into proper groups, the groups themselves are carefully arranged so that they form a whole. The entire list is always present to Paul’s mind in its complete order before he sets down the first item. The most perfect arrangement appears in the list in 2 Cor. 6:4–10, which deserves the fullest study and appreciation. The world’s godlessness and unrighteousness have never been described more adequately than in Rom. 1:18–32. As it was in 4:24, ἅτινα is qualitative, not merely “which” (our versions) but “of a kind which,” thus already intimating that the list is not exhaustive.

We indicate the groups by means of dashes. Some make four groups: 3–2–8–2; we find five: 3–2–4–4–2. Eight would be unrhetorical, and a glance shows that it contains two fours. Five is the half of ten. Ten indicates greatest completeness (ten commandments, ten virgins, ten slaves in the parables, etc., i. e., in each case all); hence the broken ten = incompleteness which allows the reader to supply the remainder.

Some texts begin with “adulteries” and thus have four in the first group; this addition is probably due to Matt. 15:19, and Mark 7:21. This is the sex group, the nastiest, the most degrading, on which a special curse seems to rest, Fleischessuenden in a specific sense. “Fornication” = all illicit sexual intercourse. “Uncleanness” is broader and includes not only the other sexual aberrations but also all that leads to them—the whole mass of this filth. Ἀσέλγεια = Zuegellosigkeit, having restraint removed, plunging onward like a runaway horse; it is here associated with sex. As uncleanness spreads in all directions, so this third rushes on through to the limit and lets no consideration halt its course. These three and the next two are comprehensive singulars and thus again a significant five.

Galatians 5:20

20 Now a closely associated pair that is probably placed next to the sex group because in the pagan world they are so closely connected with sexual sins, call it the godless group. “Idolatry” was a constant danger to Gentile Christians. This was due not only to the fact that superstition drew them toward the old false gods; what often drew them still more were the festivities of the whole Roman world, celebrations and the mass of customs that centered in idol worship in one way or in another. Pagan skeptics scoffed at the gods but participated in the festivities and yielded to the customs.

All sorcery, witchcraft, charms, and the superstitions which furnish the soil and the atmosphere for their existence, are pagan throughout. In our times Christian words, names, and symbols have been introduced into witchcraft in Christian lands, but the basis is always pagan and idolatrous. So also is the notion that the devil operates in sorcery, etc. The writer here summarizes the results of an extensive study of this subject and of occultism in general. The sin is here named according to the drugs and medicaments so widely employed in secret pagan arts. But the word was used so as to include all magic and sorcery and is most properly paired with idolatry. All sorcery is idolatrous and thus pagan. Acts 19:18–20.

After five singulars we have ten plurals, yet not ten combined into one group but into three, hence not a unit ten (grand completeness) but a diverse ten (only hinting at completeness). There are two fours and a broken four: 4 + 4 + 2. Four is the common, brief, rhetorical expression of completeness which is constantly and even intuitively used by writers and is thus distinct from the conscious ten. Paul breaks off in the middle of the third four; instead of completing it he adds: “and the things like these,” thus in a double way ending his list as an incomplete catalog. Addit “et iis similia,” quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vitae recenseat? Luther.

Who cares to review the entire hydra? When one of its many heads is cut off, two grow in its place. We accept the reading that has the nominative plural ἔρεις instead of the singular ἔρις (B.-D. 47, 3; R. 265); this plural occurs in a number of texts and could easily be made a singular since the more usual plural is ἔριδες. One singular amid a long list of plurals would be an odd usage in Paul’s writings. Some texts also have the singular ζῆλος, but here the plural is textually well assured. Some texts insert φόνοι after φθόνοι as is done in Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 6:9 (thus the A. V.). But already Jerome counted only fifteen items. The R. V. is textually correct.

Four types of personal animosity are listed. The first denotes personal hatreds or enmities; the second, the strifes and wranglings that result; the third, the motives so often involved, jealousies; the fourth, the outbursts of hot passion in anger; the first and the third point to motives, the second and the fourth to their product. Hateful animosities produce strifes; jealousies produce passionate outbursts of anger.

Four types of partyism follow properly. When persons clash, each so often has his following. People take sides. Relatives and friends rally to the support of the one as do those of the opponent to him. Thus the flesh produces “factions,” this word indicates mercenary motives. Next there are outright “splits,” divisions, sunderings.

Third, αἱρέσεις from which our word “heresy” is derived. It denotes a choice of a special opinion for oneself. Thus the Pharisees had theirs and formed a hairesis, a sect with peculiar views and doctrines, and aligned itself especially against the Sadducees, another hairesis; see Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5. This word was applied to the Christians by the Jews, Acts 24:5, 14; 28:22. Its philosophic use came later, according to which it denoted a peculiar school of philosophy.

Here and in 1 Cor. 11:19 Paul uses the word in the plural with a severer meaning. These “heresies” are results of the flesh and are to be condemned. Paul also lists them after “splits” or divisions, for they are evidently their cause. The context in 2 Pet. 2:1 is the most damaging of all: false prophets, false teachers, haireseis of destruction brought in on the side by such as deny even the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. It is easy to see the course the word has followed; it soon reached what we call “heresy,” any false doctrine down to the very worst.

Galatians 5:21

21 Paul has been criticized for adding “envies” which, we are told, should properly appear after “wraths.” This criticism rests on the conception that Paul refers to cases of envy between individuals in common matters of life as when one envies what another has. Then “envies” might, indeed, appear in the group headed by “enmities.” Paul places “envies” in the group headed by mercenary “factions” and intends to convey the idea that “envies” are one of the motives which help to create such doctrines and the parties and splits which they cause. Here we may note Matt. 27:18 and also Phil. 1:15.

The last pair: drunkennesses or “sprees” and carousings, Gelage, Luther translates: Saufen, Fressen, which is very much to the point. From the fact that Paul has four terms to denote hostilities and four to denote divisions the deduction has been made that such conditions prevailed among the Galatians at this time. Any deduction made would have to apply to the whole list, including even “the things like these.” And Paul says that concerning all these things he has told the Galatians in advance as he now does again “that they who perpetrate such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” This catalog evidently does not present a special selection of sins that had but recently developed among the Galatians. The present participle characterizes: “those whose mark is the practice of such things”; πράσσω is often used in the evil sense, “to perpetrate.”

When Paul writes “shall not inherit” he calls to mind all that he has said regarding the testament (3:15, etc.), regarding the inheritance (3:18), regarding minor heirs (4:1, etc.), regarding full-grown sons (4:7), regarding inheriting like Isaac (4:22, etc., note v. 30). All this shows that Paul does not mean: shall not enter heaven, “God’s kingdom” in that sense. His kingdom is inherited in this life.

“God’s kingdom” is one of the grandest concepts of Scripture. see Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 1:33; John 3:3. The kingdom is the rule of God in grace and in glory. Wherever he so rules there is this blessed kingdom. Unlike earthly kingdoms, the divine King alone makes his kingdom. Those kingdoms exist apart from their kings, make and at times unmake their kings; not so this kingdom. The genitive is possessive: the kingdom belongs to God; but it is difficult to exclude authorship from this genitive: God makes the kingdom. It extends from Adam to eternity. On earth his rule is in grace, in heaven it is in glory. Jesus expounded this kingdom in his parables, each parable revealing one side of it. The new birth admits to this kingdom, John 3:3, 5. This is effected by repentance, Matt. 3:2.

We “inherit” the kingdom. Since we are sons of the King, it is ours. We are not subjects as are those of ordinary earthly kingdoms but royal princes (1 Pet. 2:9) who bear themselves as such. Grand vistas open up here. “The kingdom ours remaineth,” Luther. We own it as heirs. We already rule in this kingdom and shall rule.

Since we are heirs of the kingdom, crowns await us. Only kings are crowned. This crowning takes place at the consummation of the kingdom. We shall sit with Christ on his throne. Superearthly is the kingdom, for all earthly kingdoms have only subjects, but this kingdom is composed of nothing but kings. It carries the idea of a kingdom to its nth degree.

See the author’s Kings and Priests for a full exposition. The future tense “shall not inherit” = shall never possess this inheritance, because they are doing these works of the flesh they cannot be reborn and become the King’s sons.

Galatians 5:22

22 But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, benignity, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

We have discussed the fact that Paul has in mind “spirit” in v. 16. He does not say, “the works of the spirit” (v. 20, “the works of the flesh”) but uses the nobler word, “the fruit of the spirit.” Compare the significant expression, “the unfruitful works of the darkness” (Eph. 5:11). “Fruit” is also singular although it is a collective. The flesh spreads out in many directions with its evil works; all its many activities are bad. The spirit follows one direction, produces unit fruit. The flesh has “works,” deeds. In listing them Paul has used many plurals.

As fruit of the spirit Paul lists nothing but virtues, the highest moral qualities, and thus also lifts this list above the other. The other list is heterogeneous: 3–2–4–4–2; this list is homogeneous: 3–3–3: each group has three members, and there are three groups. The other list is a jangle, this one a sweet harmony. While it may be only rhetorical and apparent only because we have the lists side by side, this appears intentional to the writer. Paul has the capacity for such perfect rhetoric.

First Corinthians 13 is Paul’s own description of “love,” the most essential product of faith, the mother of all other Christian virtues, hence the first in this list. Although it is little used in pagan Greek, this word has a fine history. In the LXX it still has lower meanings down to erotic love; but in the New Testament it rose to its fullest glory. God is love. It is not always adequately defined. As distinguished from φιλία, the love of mere liking and affection, ἀγάπη is the love of intelligent comprehension united with corresponding blessed purpose.

So God loved the world, understood all its depravity and purposed to remove it. He could not embrace the foul, stinking world in philia, but he did love it with agape and sent his Son to cleanse it. We cannot offer affection to our enemies who would smite us in the face; Jesus did not love the Pharisees with philia and does not ask us so to love our enemies. It is agape that he asks, the love that understands the hatefulness of the enemy and purposes to remove it. This distinction comes to full view in John 21:15–17. Some of the lower uses still appear in the New Testament as when publican loves publican, but even here intelligence and purpose are involved.

Warfield’s idea that agape sees value in the loved object breaks down when the main passages are studied.

With this love goes “joy.” This is a remarkable combination that was written by the man who composed 2 Cor. 6:4–10 on the basis of his own experience, yet note that “always rejoicing” appears even in this list (v. 10). Yes, joy is one of the cardinal Christian virtues; it deserves a place next to love. Pessimism is a grave fault. This is not fatuous joy such as the world accepts; it is the enduring joy that bubbles up from all the grace of God in our possession, from the blessedness that is ours (Matt. 5:3, etc.), that is undimmed by tribulation, that merges into the joy of heaven. This joy is the sunshine that ever beams for the believer. On “peace” see 1:3.

As a Christian virtue it is subjective, the assured quietness of the soul, the opposite of dread and terror, the feeling of all who walk with what is spirit and indeed know that all is well between themselves and God. These virtues form the first trio as being the virtues which fill the spirit itself.

The second trio is composed of virtues which appear in our contact with men. “Longsuffering”—the mind holds out long before giving way to action. The Rheims Version has “longanimity” (Trench). This word is used also with reference to God. Men may provoke, the spirit holds out quietly.

Trench has written well regarding the synonyms χρηστότης and ἀγαθωσύνη. The former is exhibited by Jesus when he received the penitent sinner, Luke 7:37–50. It is always sweet, kind, mild, full of graciousness. The best English word for it seems to be “benignity.” Close to it lies the other. “Goodness” seems to be a little pale; perhaps “beneficence” would be better since the derivation from ἀγαθός points to the bestowal upon others of what is good and beneficent. It is goodness, not as mere quiescent moral excellence, but as goodness doing good to others. Trench finds an exhibition of it also in the expulsion of the traffickers from the Temple by Jesus and in his invectives against the Pharisees in Matthew 23.

The division into verses places “faithfulness” into v. 22 and makes it a fourth member of this group. This division would be satisfactory if πίστις meant “trustworthiness,” the fact that men could always trust us. But the sense is not passive, it is active, it is the German Treue and not Glaube (Luther), which latter the A. V. imitated with its translation “faith.” It is a Christian virtue and not saving faith. We see that the term belongs to the third trio when we note that our being true and faithful refers to God, to his Word and his will; our being meek refers to the world of men; and our self-control refers to our own selves. Do not object that we are faithful also toward men, for this is only an exercise of faithfulness to God. The essential thing is ever to be faithful and true to God and to Christ.

Galatians 5:23

23 So we shall also be full of “meekness” among men. When we are wronged or abused we shall show no resentment by threatening vengeance. The opposite is to be arrogant, vehement, bitter, wild, and violent. The greatest example of meekness is Jesus himself. Compare the author on Matt. 5:5, including the startling promise given to the meek. The last of this final trio is “self-control,” κράτος, holding all our desires and passions in check. The “temperance” of our versions is inadequate, cf., Acts 24:25.

Some regard τῶντοιούτων as a masculine since no antecedent is visible; some are undecided; some regard it as a neuter. We note the correspondence with τὰτοιαῦτα in v. 21. When we are told that it is rather idle for Paul to say that law is not against “such things” (neuter), and that we therefore have the masculine, the question arises as to whether it is less idle to say that law is not against “such men.” As far as grammar is concerned, since all of the antecedents are feminine, the neuter is preferable to the masculine. Of far more importance is the correspondence of this clause with the relative clause in v. 21. Still more important is the meaning that “law,” of whatever kind it may be, is not opposed to these Christian virtues. That means freedom, the great gospel freedom which Paul has set forth. “Not against such things” means: as against the works of the flesh. “Such things” implies also that there are still more besides the nine here listed. This makes it unnecessary to add “things like these” as was done in v. 20.

Galatians 5:24

24 Now Paul speaks of the persons. And they who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the cravings. The genitive denotes possession: “of Christ” = belonging to Christ. The Greek uses the aorist to express the past fact whereas we prefer the perfect “have crucified.” When we compare passages such as 2:20 and Rom. 6:6, it is well to note the fact that in these passages the expressions are passive and speak of a crucifixion we have undergone while here the active speaks of a crucifixion we have performed. Rom. 8:13 is active: we put to death (A. V. mortify) the deeds of the flesh; but it is durative, a mortification that ever continues, here one past act of crucifying the flesh is referred to.

What Paul indicates is the fact that all who really belong to Christ have performed this act on their flesh, a decisive, effective act. It was not performed upon them, they themselves did it; it does not continue, it is done and over with. While it is expressed in the third person, v. 25 shows that the reference is pointedly to the Galatians. Once for all, at the time of their conversion, they killed the flesh. In Romans we died to the sin. This reverses the expression but has the same meaning.

The expression “they did crucify the flesh” is even more significant than “put to death” in Rom. 8:13. Yes, we murdered the flesh, it was a violent act to kill this old tyrant and thus to remove him from his throne in our hearts. But the verb “crucified” contains more, for is recalls the cross and the crucifixion of Christ. In conversion we accept the crucified Christ, “the cross” (5:11), in order ever after to glory only in this cross (6:14) as our deliverance. Then and there we nailed the flesh to this divine cross, to let it hang there.

Paul reminds the Galatians of this decisive act, and the third person states that all who are Christ’s have done this. The act was radical, for with the flesh all its passions and all its cravings (singular in v. 16) were crucified. The fact that the flesh still troubles us changes nothing on this score. In conversion we did make a radical break, the one here put into strong figurative language.

Παθήματα, originally a vox media, is used fourteen times by Paul and always in an evil sense (M.-M. 473) to designate the affects and the stirrings forced upon us by the flesh in order to enslave us. They would literally carry us away (C.-K. 841); the ἐπιθυμίαι are the evil desires and cravings kindled in us. They are the flesh in its activity and were thus crucified with the flesh. Let them remain so crucified, let them never attain a resurrection so as again to control us!

Galatians 5:25

25 The asyndeton states this in an effective way: If we are living with what is spirit (as we surely are), let us also keep in line with what is spirit, brethren! The two datives are abutted in a telling way in the Greek. Having crucified the flesh, let us be done with it! To crucify a man is to get rid of him as a shame and disgrace, as an utter abomination. So now we live “with what is spirit” (see v. 16). Our spiritual life lies in this spiritual means.

In v. 16 the verb used is περιπατέω, the ordinary word for “to walk”; here it is στοιχέω, “to keep in line, to march in rank and file.” Thus it is a little more precise than the other verb. The dative again indicates means: let us keep marching in rank and file by the aid of what is spirit, all of you, Paul included, he and the Galatians in one line. The picture is both beautiful in itself and full of effective appeal to the Galatians.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.