1. J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 186.

2. Ibid., 13. For his further ideas, see 186–206.

3. A highly sophisticated book, but one that has been used with great profit by theologians and pastors for understanding the importance of culture and society in our perceptions of the world, is P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966).

4. More accurately, Paul ministered in the southern districts of the province of Galatia, most probably in and around the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Scholars have debated whether Galatians was originally written to the southern districts (south Galatian theory) or to the northern districts (north Galatian theory). A convenient and readable summary of the issues and evidence may be found in F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 3–18. See also “Original Meaning” at 2:1–10.

5. This misunderstanding of Galatians and Paul has been thoroughly exposed by E. P. Sanders in his scholarly Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977). A more popular presentation can be seen in his Paul (Past Masters series; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). See also “Contemporary Significance” at 6:11–18.

6. F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 1.

7. It is possible that they were also concerned with the observance of Jewish calendars (cf. 4:10). However, this concern appears only once in the letter and so will not be discussed in detail. It should be noted that this concern was as much social as the other two concerns, since calendars regulate one’s basic life and provide one a social identity.

8. The NIV translates sarki (lit., “by flesh”) with “by human effort.” While this translation may capture some of the idea, it focuses too much on effort (effort is involved in the system of Christ as well!) and misses the crucial ideas associated with “flesh.” For Paul, the flesh is existence apart from dependence on the Spirit and trust in Christ. See notes on Galatians 2:15–21; 3:3; 5:19–21.

9. So E. Käsemann, “Justification and Salvation-History in the Epistle to the Romans,” in Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 72.

10. A scholarly defense of this view can be found in E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 33–428; his famous summary is on 422–23. See now his further study, Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 BCE-66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 241–78.

11. I am not saying that Judaism never showed itself in particular authors or locations as a works-righteousness religion. But this is also true of Christianity. I have encountered numerous pockets of Christianity that are as much, if not more, works-righteousness oriented as anything I have ever read in Judaism, and that includes 4 Ezra, an unusual Jewish pseudepigraph.

12. F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 49.

13. F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 46, says (in sociological categories): “The function of these antithetical contrasts is to express the ineradicable distinction between the sect (in which salvation is to be found) and the parent religious community (where there is only condemnation).” On the same page he gives a fuller listing of the antitheses in Paul’s letters.

14. See J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 68–72.

15. See F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 277–78.

16. This viewpoint on the relation of the Christian to the law will be explained more completely at 3:19–25.

17. This chapter depends indirectly on the depiction of the history of the Protestant fundamentalist movement in the United States as presented by G. M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925 (New York: Oxford, 1980), and the description of the modern state of affairs presented in J. D. Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987). As normally defined, legalism has not been as integral a part of the mainline Protestant churches of the U.S. or the state churches of Europe as it has been of the fundamentalist-evangelical churches of the U.S. and Europe. For an example of a critique of why legalism is not found as frequently in the German Lutheran Church, see H. Thielicke, “The Freedom of Decision: The Impossibility of Casuistry in Ethical Christianity,” in his The Freedom of the Christian Man, trans. J. W. Doberstein (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 148–66. For a survey of the rift of conservative and liberal evangelicals in Britain, see D. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 181–228, who teases out of British church history some clear examples of legalism in the evangelical movement. It has become clear to many that the Keswick Conventions of Britain, with their variety of evangelical influences, beginning in 1875, have been extremely influential on Protestant fundamentalism and its sometimes legalistic ethic (on this see Bebbington, 151–80). But just as crucial to the development of the legalistic ethic, as Marsden has pointed out, has been social changes in the U.S., against which legalistic practices were devised as a battering ram.

18. F. D. Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 240.

19. Table purity refers to the practice of eating permissible food and not eating impermissible food and doing so according to certain purity practices, like washing one’s hands in a ceremonial fashion (so Mark 7:3).

20. For an excellent discussion of purity, see S. Westerholm, “Clean and Unclean,” in DJG, 125–32, esp. 125–28. That purity, especially priestly purity, is the central feature of Pharisaism that has been successfully contested by E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), esp. 131–308; see also the shorter survey in his Judaism: Practice and Belief. 63 BCE–66 CE, 431–40.

21. Without getting into all the issues here, however, I am of the view that such rules should not be constructed by local churches. Such rules tend to harden and become archaic (but binding) when they should be abandoned as social mores change. As society changes, Christians need to adapt their strategies and concerns.

1. A nice collection of ancient letters may be found in J. L. White, Light From Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). See also S. K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity 5; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986); W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); I wrote a popular introduction to Paul’s letters: “More Than Mere Mail,” Moody Monthly 88/9 (May 1988): 36–38.

2. On apostle, see K. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” TDNT 1:401–7; E. von Eicken, et al., “Apostle,” in NIDNTT 1:126–37; J.-A. Bühner, “ἀπόστολος,” EDNT 1:142–46; N. Turner, Christian Words, 23–25; H. D. Betz, “Apostle,” ABD 1:309–11.

3. All quotations from the Mishnah are from the translation of Jacob Neusner. See The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988). Words in brackets are implied. A similar definition can be found in Origen, John 32.17 (Migne, 14.785C).

4. Besides for himself, Paul uses the term apostle also for those outside the circle of the Twelve: see Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Gal. 1:19 (see notes); Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 2:7.

5. For further discussion, see R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 8–9; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 76–77; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (4th ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 285–320; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 279–303.

6. Some scholars see an intentional word-play by Paul in “turning to a different [heteron] gospel—which is really no gospel at all [allo].” The first word is said to mean “a different kind” and the second “(not) another of the same kind.” See the discussion in Burton, Galatians, 22–24, 420–22.

7. E.g., see J. R. W. Stott, Contemporary Christian, 70–85.

8. See E. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Man of Vision, Man of Courage (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), 361–63; E. Robertson, The Shame and the Sacrifice: The Life and Martyrdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Collier, 1988), 123–26.

9. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 37.

10. On whether this means “loss of salvation,” see the notes on 5:1–12.

11. A book that has been helpful to me in this regard is A. F. Holmes, All Truth Is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977).

12. I am not, however, assuming that everything in every other religion is false. See on this, Sir N. Anderson, The World’s Religions (4th ed.; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1975) and Christianity and Comparative Religions (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1970). A recent provocative book in this regard is C. H. Pinnock’s A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); this author distinguishes helpfully between “exclusivism,” “inclusivism,” and “pluralism.”

13. A lucid survey has been done by Ruth A. Tucker, whose title comes from our text, Another Gospel: Alternative Religions and the New Age Movement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); see esp. pp. 15–48 for the fundamental definitions and categories used in analyzing “heretical movements.”

14. A survey can be found in ibid., 231–43; I am deeply dependent on her survey in what follows.

15. Ibid., 231.

16. David Koresh, the cult leader of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, is a recent such figure. As this chapter is being edited, the fires of the compound he dominated have still not calmed down. It is important for us to realize that Koresh’s beginnings were dramatically unlike the endings of his leadership. While it is hard for us to understand how anyone could be connected to such a lunatic-type leader, had we seen him in the beginning of his movement we might better understand how it all can be explained.

17. A technical study analyzing the acceptability of inflammatory ancient rhetoric is L. T. Johnson, “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 419–41.

1. “Mirror reading” here is a process of inferring from a negative statement by Paul (e.g., “My gospel is not from the Jerusalem leaders”) to what the positive statement was made by the opponents (“Paul’s gospel must come from Jerusalem because all good things come from Jerusalem”). This process is normal in exegesis and simply assumes that an author’s tone and focus are directly related to the context to which he is writing. In this case we assume that Paul’s need to state his independence became necessary because it was being denied. On this, see J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 40–41. Barclay finds four criteria that aid the reader in mirror-reading: (1) The tone of the remarks; (2) the frequency of the remarks; (3) the clarity of the remarks; or (4) the unfamiliarity of the remarks. Barclay has a fuller study of this in “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93. The use of these criteria across the whole of Galatians, when done properly, will enable the reader to find a consistent picture of the Judaizers. Such a procedure can be done in one’s own Bible study or in a Bible study group.

2. See further at J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 43–44.

3. F. F. Bruce contends that the issue is the verbs of the two questions: “win the approval” and “please.” He then argues that the answer to the first question is “humans” (Paul is seeking to persuade humans) and the second question is “God” (Paul is seeking the approval of God). See Galatians, 84–86.

4. On Paul’s gospel, see G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 359–568.

5. The Greek expression is kata anthropon: “according to humans,” “consistent with the way humans do things,” “human-ish,” “derived from humans.” It stands in direct contrast to the divine and the revealed (1:12). See also Gal. 3:15, 29; 4:23, 28–29; Col. 2:8.

6. The expression “receive” (parelabon) is identical to the one in v. 9; Paul says he did not get his gospel as a result of the sacred process of handing on holy traditions.

7. Stott, Only One Way, 30.

8. See T. Holtz, “ἀποκάλυψις,” EDNT 1:130–32; W. Mundle, et al., “Revelation,” NIDNTT 3:309–40, esp. 314–16.

9. For readers who want to see a fresh and stimulating presentation of the relationship of earliest Christianity to Judaism, with special attention to the inner conflicts of the two movements, I recommend J. D. G. Dunn’s book, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991); a Jewish perspective is found in S. J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987). For a more popular survey of the history of the period, see P. Barnett, Behind the Scenes of the New Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990).

10. A useful survey of the biblical message about the authority of the church and the apostles can be found in Book IV, chapter 8, of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 2:1149–66.

11. My quotation comes from James Atkinson’s wonderful survey of this period in the history of the church in Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, ed. T. Dowley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 364; see the whole section on the Reformation at pp. 360–403, where other important Reformers are surveyed, including William Tyndale, John Calvin, Huldreich Zwingli, the Puritans, Thomas Cranmer, John Bunyan, and the Anabaptists. For more on Luther, see O. Chadwick, The Reformation (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968), 40–75.

1. An excellent, though technical, book on Paul’s past is M. Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991). For a more popular reading, see R. N. Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 21–30.

2. This is seen in the tenses of the Greek verbs: whereas the three verbs of vv. 13–14 are imperfects (describing remote incomplete action), the verbs of vv. 15–17, describing the abrupt change in Paul’s life, are aorist (describing the action as a whole).

3. The Greek word used by Paul is prosanatithemi (“consult”); it is frequently used for consulting a trained expert for interpretation of some dream or vision. Paul knew that the encounter with Christ, an experience “in me” (v. 16), carried with it an infallible interpretation so that he did not need consultation or advice to perceive its significance. On the verb, see J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 109–10.

4. It is possible that the expressions of v. 14 are to be understood with an anti-Gentile force: “I was advancing in Judaism [not universalism]” and I “was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors [in their protection of Jewish privilege and national distinctives].”

5. The verb Paul uses is historesai (NIV: “to get acquainted with”). This verb is normally used to describe the attempt to obtain information and most likely means this here. Thus, the NIV could be improved to read, “to learn something [from Peter].” But would this then conflict with the thrust of Paul’s argument here? We can assume it would not, or Paul would either have changed his mind or not mentioned it. Instead, we can assume that Paul thinks gaining information from Peter is compatible with the independence of the source of Paul’s gospel. While Paul argues strenuously for the independence of his gospel as to source, he also argues that it is compatible with the gospel of the Jerusalem apostles. Thus, he had a full three years before he learned from Peter some of the facts about Jesus or the beginnings of the church. See further J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 110–13.

6. Some scholars have, in fact, argued that the records of Paul’s Damascus Road experience provide information only about Paul’s call, not about his conversion. I am persuaded, however, that the information of the text is best understood when it is seen as a description of both a conversion and a call. A fascinating book in this regard, written from a Jewish and sociological perspective on Paul, can be found in A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), esp. pp. 3–33, 72–114.

7. Two important pieces of bibliography, coming from the world of sociology, are D. A. Snow and R. Machalek, “The Convert as a Social Type,” in Sociological Theory 1983 (ed. R. Collins; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983), 259–89; C. L. Staples and A. L. Mauss, “Conversion or Commitment? A Reassessment of the Snow and Machalek Approach to the Study of Conversion,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 26 (1987): 133–47.

8. My favorite Christian autobiography is that of C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1956), who clearly reorients his entire life around the life he found in Christ.

9. To be sure, the natural setting for such a “story” is baptismal services. Besides the obvious division in churches over adult vs. infant baptism, few services can provide the time needed for such biographies. See also my comments at 3:1–5 (“Contemporary Significance” section).

10. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 31–32.

11. A major spark in this fire was G. Friesen, with J. R. Maxson, Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to Traditional View (Portland: Multnomah, 1980). Friesen properly inveighs against the view that God has some specific will for each person for all aspects of life and it is that person’s responsibility to find that will (“hit the bull’s eye,” or “the dot”) or be forever “out of God’s will.”

12. Again, see J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 128–45, who helpfully distinguishes the general and specific senses of guidance, vocation, and ministry, and who offers wise advice about our topic. Stott suggests that Christians, in order to discern God’s will, need to yield, pray, talk (to others in the community and to our parents), think, and wait (pp. 130–31).

1. It is likely that this is fourteen years after his conversion (1:13–17). It is possible that it could refer to fourteen years after his first visit mentioned at 1:18, or fourteen years after his visit to Syria and Cilicia (1:21). If we date his conversion at A.D. 33, then this visit to Jerusalem, his second such visit, would have taken place probably in A.D. 46. For more information on the historical situation, see below at the end of the “Original Meaning” section (pp. 87–90).

2. This second visit came about because of a “revelation” (v. 2). Acts 11:27–30 describes a prophetic direction given through Agabus; Gal 2:2 may well be describing such a prophetic word as a revelation. See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 47.

3. Technically, the Aramaic name means “son of prophecy”; “prophecy” has at least two dimensions: (1) prediction and (2) consolation/encouragement.

4. It is possible that the significance of Titus’s Gentile status during this visit dawned on Paul after further reflection. But this is less likely, in my opinion, simply because first-century pious Jews immediately knew who was Jewish and who was Gentile. I think, therefore, that Paul took Titus along as a test case.

5. For other details about Titus, see G. F. Hawthorne, “Titus,” NISBE, 4:864–65.

6. This is a strong term. See further the notes at 2:14.

7. Some scholars have argued that Paul’s submission did not pertain to the validity or truthfulness of his message but to its practicability and effectiveness (see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 111). Bruce states: “His commission was not derived from Jerusalem, but it could not be executed effectively except in fellowship with Jerusalem.” I tend to think this is drawing too fine a line of distinction. It can be easily imagined that Paul, however confident, could have submitted his ideas to them for consideration. Since they agreed with Paul, Paul had a deeper argument. I believe that, had they disagreed with Paul, he would probably have parted company with them.

8. F. F. Bruce has offered an ingenious suggestion as to the time of this infiltration, contending that it occurred after Paul and Barnabas left Antioch and that it occurred at Antioch not Jerusalem. This, he then argues, helps account for the silence on the issue of circumcision in Acts 11:30; 12:25 (see his Galatians, 115–17).

9. Paul uses the Greek verb dokeo (“to seem”) in each instance. The “seemingness” of this group is surely Paul’s perception of how others treated them: people of honor. Paul, however, treats them as of equal status and therefore no more than “apparently honorable.” Because of his calling, Paul is willing to part company from this noble group. It is possible that Paul has himself changed his mind (he formerly thought they were to be highly regarded authorities and therefore obeyed) or that the new age of the Spirit had rendered the distinctions operating during the earthly life of Jesus no longer important.

10. This is James, the Lord’s brother, probable author of the book of James. Early Christian traditions inform us both about the preeminent role he played in Jerusalem Christianity (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:17–26; note here the order of names) and about his noteworthy piety. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem involved getting acquainted with Peter; that James is listed first at 2:9 may reveal the growing authority of James and the lessening of authority for Peter. On James, see the especially full discussion of R. P. Martin, James (WBC 48; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), xxxi–lxi.

11. A full citation of the evidence from the ancient world can be found in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 58.

12. Cf. Acts 11:30; 12:25. The use of the aorist verb (espoudasa) suggests to most commentators that Paul had already begun the practice of collecting funds for the poor in Judea (see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 126). However, the aorist may indicate here no more than that he was eager to remember the poor (rather than when he was eager). On the collection of Paul, see the especially fine discussion of R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco, Tex.: 1986), 256–58, upon which I draw deeply here.

13. An example of such an interpretation can be found in the widely used introduction of W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 301–4.

14. This chart originated in a handout I received from my teacher, M. J. Harris, and is used here with his permission.

15. As mentioned previously (footnote 2), I think this is the prophetic utterance of Agabus recorded in Acts 11:27–30.

16. It is possible to argue that the appointment mentioned in Acts 15:2 is revelatory.

17. For readers who have gone through the texts and the evidence as suggested, I recommend that they now read carefully through the introduction of one of the commentaries listed on the “Works Consulted” page (pp. 17–18).

18. An example is F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. I believe he explains far too much as nothing more than social factors. What we ought to learn to see is that while everything has a social context, other factors, like theological ones, are just as real and just as influential.

19. See esp. P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966); see also P. Berger’s The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1967).

20. Sadly, it must be added that some of the newer hymnbooks found in pew racks seem not to have been edited by those with theological acumen.

21. The finest book on heresies is H. O. J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984). This book needs to be in every church library, and leaders of churches need to be familiar with its contents.

1. On table fellowship as a social and religious occasion, see esp. S. S. Bartchy, “Table Fellowship,” DJG, 796–800; D. E. Smith, “Table Fellowship,” ABD 6:302–4. For a more extensive study, see J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

2. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 72.

3. Paul uses a periphrastic expression to convey his meaning here: hoti kategnosmenos en (“because he was condemned”). The imperfect verb with the perfect participle emphasizes the state of Peter and fullness of the sin (i.e., he was clearly behaving in the wrong manner). This Greek expression stands in contrast to the simple aorist “I opposed”; the aorist is used here to denote the fact that Paul opposed him.

4. On this, see the specialized studies of E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 23–28, 134–51, 272–83. The first two sets of pages describe practice in Palestine; the last set the Diaspora. I am deeply indebted to Sanders for my observations on Jewish food laws. See also G. Schramm and D. E. Smith, “Meal Customs,” ABD 4:648–55.

5. What is noticeable here is that easily domesticated animals are permissible (with a few others) while the “wild animals” are prohibited (with a few exceptions: wild sheep and goats, since they are like the domesticated ones; deer and antelope).

6. What is permitted here is fish that have scales and fins.

7. These are prohibited because of their contact with corpses; corpses were a main source of impurity for Jewish regulations.

8. I am unsure about the distinctions among insects; one would naturally think of certain insects being more susceptible to corpse-impurity than others.

9. The reason seems to be because they creep and crawl on the ground (and are, therefore, more susceptible to impurities?).

10. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah, 27.

11. A significant discussion took place in ancient Judaism over oil. The Bible prohibits the consumption of liquids that were found to have a flying insect in them or on them (cf. Lev. 11:31–38 with 11:20–23). The issue became big: how were Jews to keep all their liquids free from flies and gnats? The rabbis made decisions that anything smaller than a lentil (about the size of a pea) did not defile liquids. (Thus, gnats did not defile but flies did.) Since water, wine, and oil were liquids and were often exposed to air, special rules were made to keep them clean. See ibid., 32–33, 200–205.

12. A scholarly study of this point can be found in J. D. G. Dunn, “The Incident at Antioch (Galatians 2:11–18),” in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, 129–82.

13. This is the view of E. P. Sanders, “Jewish Association with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11–14,” in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honour of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 170–88.

14. So F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 131; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 73–75.

15. A recent study has challenged this “leftist” versus “rightist” scheme of understanding the tensions of earliest Christianity; see C. C. Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division Within the Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).

16. See further in N. Turner, Christian Words (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1980), 219–20. The finest history of the term is found in C. Spicq, Lexique Théologique du Nouveau Testament (Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires de Fribourg, 1991), 1546–53; see also U. Wilckens, “ὑποκρίνομαι, κτλ.,” TDNT 8:559–71.

17. So J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 114; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 78.

18. This physical demand of circumcision for converts has several chapters in its Jewish history. On this and the larger question of conversion to Judaism, see S. McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity During the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), esp. 68, 79–82.

19. The term “to follow Jewish customs” (ioudaizein) may mean no more than to live like a Jew. However, I tend to agree with those who understand the term as “converting to Judaism” in the fullest sense. See H. D. Betz, Galatians, 112; see also J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 149–50.

20. The “even,” the passive voice of the verb (“was led astray”), and the instrumental dative combine to tone down Barnabas’s responsibility. Barnabas, for whatever reasons, went along with the faction but seems not to have desired it. Perhaps he held out the longest for the hope of peace. As is easily noticed, Paul does not attack Barnabas.

21. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 53: “He did not listen to those who may well have counselled him to be cautious and to avoid washing dirty theological linen in public. He made no attempt to hush the dispute up or arrange (as we might) for a private discussion from which the public or the press were excluded. The consultation in Jerusalem had been private (verse 2), but the showdown in Antioch must be public.”

22. The best book I have ever seen on Christian relationships is D. Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. J. W. Doberstein (New York: Harper & Row, 1954), esp. 40–77.

1. In a scholarly commentary, H. D. Betz has argued that 2:15–21 is the propositio (main thesis or proposition) of Galatians (see his Galatians). While it is reasonable to argue this, I prefer to see these verses as Paul’s theological reflection on the incident with Peter rather than a new stage in the letter to the Galatians. Galatians 3:1 starts afresh with direct address to the Galatians while, in hindsight, 2:15–21 appears to be direct address to Peter.

2. Of course I believe this is still true for Christian practice; I just do not think this is Paul’s particular meaning in this passage.

3. On the Jewish background to the association of Gentiles with the term sinners, cf. 1 Sam. 15:18; Pss. Sol. 2:1–2; 17:25; Jub. 23:23–24; 24:28; 4 Ezra 3:28–36. These references were found in J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 77–78, n. 7.

4. It goes without comment that Paul knew that Jews were also sinners (cf. Rom. 3:9–20) but that is not his angle here.

5. For a full discussion, see A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 152–91; see also G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 437–50; D. J. Moo, “ ‘Righteousness’ Language in Paul,” in Romans 1–8 (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1991), 75–86. A more popular treatment may be found in L. L. Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 177–202.

6. In the courtroom people may be declared “guilty” or “acquitted.” Theologically considered, we can never be “acquitted” because the Judge’s decision is not that we are “not guilty.” Rather, the Judge pronounces us “guilty but nonetheless forgiven” because Christ has assumed our penalty. The verdict then is “guilty” but the penalty is eliminated because Christ bore it on our behalf.

7. For a scholarly defense of the view that “works of the law” describe Jewish distinctives, see esp. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), esp. 183–241; see also 242–64. This view has been picked up in part by J. G. M. Barclay in Obeying the Truth and by F. Watson in Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles.

8. For more discussion, see H.-C. Hahn and F. Thiele, “Work,” in NIDNTT 3:1147–59; D. J. Moo, “ ‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 73–100, esp. the chart on p. 93; however, I demur from Moo in several important respects.

9. Because faith is continuing (and not just some one-time act of trust), Paul can call it the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5).

10. W. Barclay, The Mind of St. Paul (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1958), 143. See also the definition of his namesake, J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 236: “In other words, faith in Galatians is not just ‘believing the gospel’; it also includes a commitment to ‘obey the truth,’ and cannot be distinguished from the constant attempt to ‘walk in the Spirit.’ ” See further at pp. 235–37.

11. There is a growing number of scholars who believe now that “faith of Jesus Christ” in Galatians 2:16 (and elsewhere in Paul’s letters) means “the faith that Jesus Christ exercised” and not “faith in Jesus Christ.” For Galatians 2:16, this view provides the objective means of salvation (Christ achieved something for us) and the subjective reception (“So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus”). I tend toward the traditional view here since I take the second expression of faith in 2:16 (“our faith in Christ Jesus”) as a repetition of the former expression (NIV: “faith in Jesus Christ”). For discussion, see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 138–39; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 87–88.

12. See J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 78–79.

13. Paul’s Pharisaic background is well known (see Acts 22:3; 23:6; Phil. 3:4–6). Regarding Peter, two examples may suffice: (1) the disciples’, including Peter’s, serious questioning of Jesus about his offending Pharisaic traditions (Matt. 15:12), and (2) Peter’s comment that he had never eaten anything unclean (Acts 10:14). This latter comment probably refers to Peter’s intention, and not actual practice, because the laws on this were so carefully defined that it would be hard to live one’s entire life without offending these traditions at some point. However, such uncleanness could be eliminated with washing and by waiting until evening. Proper standing, however, could always be retained if one did not knowingly or intentionally eat any unclean food. See above, pp. 101–2.

14. R. Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), 76 (italics added).

15. Ibid., 77–78 (emphasis added).

1. The Greek term is anoetai. Its origin is instructive: “without knowledge” or “without reason” and hence, “illogical” and “lacking in discernment.” See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 99.

2. The Greek word here is ebaskanen, “bewitched” or “fooled.” While the word literally describes being fascinated by a magical spell, scholars debate whether the term here is being used more metaphorically (“fooled”) or literally (“bewitched”). See the discussion in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 100.

3. Though the NIV has two sentences here (a question, a statement), the original Greek construction is one sentence (a question, with a longer subordinate clause about the clear portrayal of Christ’s crucifixion). By separating the question from the subordinate clause and forming two sentences, the NIV leads the reader to look for more of a specific answer to the question.

4. A wonderful book has been written on the cross of Christ by J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986). A careful sketch of the ancient evidence about crucifixion can be found in M. Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

5. I obtained this quote from J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ, 21. It is from Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 3. The entire passage is concerned with the importance of tradition in the development of Christian customs and practices. The treatise can be found in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 3, trans. and ed. A. C. Coxe; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 reprint), 94–95.

6. Stott, The Cross of Christ, 68.

7. This debate revolves around the term proegraphe and whether it means “proclaimed publicly” or “portrayed publicly.” H. D. Betz has made a persuasive case for the term stemming from a rhetorical background and hence argues for “portrayed.” Thus, it has less to do with the “public nature” of the preaching and more to do with the “impressive nature” of the preaching (see his Galatians, 131–32, esp. note 39).

8. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 101.

9. On the Spirit in Paul’s theology, see D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 549–66; G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 479–94, 511–30, 541–43.

10. See esp. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975).

11. See ibid., 239–42.

12. For more discussion, see R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 102–3.

13. This term has generated a debate among scholars. Is it passive (“Are you being perfected” by something outside yourselves) or middle (“Are you trying to perfect yourselves” by circumcision and other Mosaic codes)? Even if the verb is probably middle, most now would argue that it is not reflexive (“perfect yourselves”) but rather intransitive middle (“attaining perfection”). And, as F. F. Bruce has translated, it is also conative: “are you trying to attain perfection.” This “perfection” is to be understood in light of historical and social context: the Judaizers undoubtedly argued that, however good Paul’s gospel was, it was something short of the fullness intended by God. This fullness could be found if one not only trusted in Christ but also submitted to the law of Moses and proselytized into Judaism. Perfection, then, is nationalization.

14. See J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 203–9; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 149.

15. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 35. The entirety of pp. 13–37 are germane to our present discussion.

16. See H. T. Kerr and J. M. Mulder, Conversions: The Christian Experience (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), xiii–xv, for some perceptive comments on the variety of conversion experiences.

17. On the value of illustrations, see J. R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 236–43.

18. Take the example of Augustine, Confessions 8.28–30, where Augustine rehearses his conversion, how a voice came to him telling him to read from the Scriptures, and in opening Scriptures he read a passage (Rom. 13:13–14) that converted him.

19. Kerr and Mulder, Conversions (see note 16). This book collects the stories of fifty different conversions, including the Apostle Paul, St. Augustine, Blaise Pascal, John Bunyan, John Wesley, Elizabeth Bayley Seton, Sojourner Truth, Charles Spurgeon, Thérèse of Lisieux, Billy Sunday, C. S. Lewis, Dorothy Day, Ethel Waters, and Charles Colson.

1. This view is held in differing ways by F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 147, 152, who translates “(By faith, of course,) just as (in the words of scripture,)” and by H. D. Betz, Galatians, 137, 140, who translates “As [it is written].” One advantage of this view is that some early Greek manuscripts add “it is written.”

2. See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 107, 112.

3. See the helpful excursus of R. N. Longenecker on how Abraham was seen by Jews (ibid., 110–12).

4. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 139.

5. A nice survey of how “offspring” or “seed” works itself out from the original Abrahamic promise can be found in T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 17–38.

6. The source Paul is quoting has been a matter of some debate. Either Paul is combining Genesis 12:3 and 18:18 or he is appealing exclusively to Genesis 18:18.

7. The translators of the NIV have decided the opening conjunction (“for,” gar) functions simply to begin a new paragraph by signaling the start of a new argument. H. D. Betz translates: “By contrast, those who are men of works….” (Galatians, 137).

8. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 220.

9. See E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE–66 CE (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 103–18, 119–45, 251–57, 270–78. See also his Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 107–47; see also 33–59.

10. A fascinating subject emerges from Paul’s observations here: how were pre-Christian Israelites accepted by God? Paul, I believe, does not intend to answer this question. He would say, I guess, that they trusted in God’s covenantal arrangement.

11. I do not think we need here to identify “doing” with “merit-seeking works.”

12. This view is held by, among others, J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 139; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 148.

13. This view is held by F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 166–67.

14. See the semi-popular discussion of L. L. Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 106–31; see also J. R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 175–82.

15. See J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 140.

16. For Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, see my book A Light among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11–29.

17. Again, see ibid., 30–48.

18. I am aware of the neoorthodox concept of universalism, which teaches that all humans will eventually be accepted by God. Paul does not teach this nor does anyone in the Bible. What we are concerned with here is the kind of universalism that teaches that anyone, regardless of race, who believes in Christ is on equal ground before God. On the problem of the former kind of universalism, see W. V. Crockett and J. G. Sigountos, Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). See also the stimulating work of C. H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). The problems of universalism and pluralism are vexing and need to be addressed by evangelicals with seriousness and urgency.

19. On this see D. A. Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); and “Paul in Modern Jewish Thought,” in D. A. Hagner, M. J. Harris, Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce on His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 143–65.

20. Again, see the works of P. Berger, including The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday, 1967).

21. Read Coretta Scott King, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969); J. M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); Jesse L. Jackson, Straight From the Heart, ed. by R. D. Hatch and F. E. Watkins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).

1. The Greek expression is “I speak according to a human manner” or “I speak the way humans do things” (kata anthropon lego). On this, see H. D. Betz, Galatians, 154–55.

2. It makes most sense if we see the covenant here as describing inheritance covenants. In 3:18 Paul shows that this is the kind of covenant he has in mind. See the discussions in H. D. Betz, Galatians, 155–56; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 128–30.

3. A survey of the possibilities and the evidence can be found in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 128–30.

4. The Greek word is kekuromenen (“duly established”) and, as F. F. Bruce points out, testaments are not “duly established” or “ratified” until the testator has died (cf. Heb 9:15–22); see Galatians, 170–71. The perfect tense of the participle may confirm Bruce’s view.

5. See R. Y. K. Fung, Galatians, 155–56.

6. For discussions, see T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), esp. 59–93; L. L. Morris, The Atonement (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 14–42.

7. For this paragraph I am deeply indebted to my colleague and friend, T. E. McComiskey, in his book, The Covenants of Promise.

8. We cannot engage in this interesting discussion. James states that Abraham and others are “justified by works and not faith alone” (James 2:24), whereas Paul teaches that we are “justified by faith alone” apart from works (Gal. 3:6–9). And Matthew shows that we must have “surpassing righteousness” (the same term, though a noun, as “justify” in James and Paul) to enter the presence of God (Matt. 5:20). I believe these three uses of the same terms can be synthesized, but we misunderstand James if we impose Paul’s definitions on him, and the same applies in the other directions.

9. Three major books are T. E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise; C. C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965); D. P. Fuller, The Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). Fuller is one of the few today who emphasize that law and grace are not opposites, and he shows that such an opposition is at the heart of both dispensationalism and covenant theology. He steers another course, one that is much closer to covenant theology than to dispensationalism. A convenient summary of classical covenant theology is M. H. Smith, “The Church and Covenant Theology,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21 (1978): 47–65. More advanced readers will want to examine J. S. Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988), esp. 37–86, 131–78, 181–218, 221–59.

We must not think, however, that only “Scofield Bible readers” are dispensationalists (though they are a primary example of people who so read the Bible). Rather, anyone who makes radical distinctions between various periods in salvation history, at least one for the Old and New Covenants, can be classified under this general heading. Thus, the contemporary liberal theologian who positively dislikes the Old Testament may be described, however unwittingly, as in some sense a dispensationalist, for he or she may focus exclusively on Jesus Christ and the new relationship with God that he taught.

10. A recent book that seeks to record the modern changes in dispensationalism is C. A. Blaising and D. L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

11. For help, I recommend that readers find some of these references in T. E. McComiskey’s tracing of these themes in The Covenants of Promise, 15–58.

1. Since Luther and Calvin, there has been great debate on this “third use of the law.” See J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill; trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 2:348–66. A Lutheran view is seen in J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955), 470–85; a Reformed view is seen in L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 612–15; and a more charismatic (renewal) view can be seen in J. R. Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 100–17, esp. 115–16. This entire issue is explored in depth in the articles and responses by Greg Bahnsen, Walter Kaiser, Jr., Douglas Moo, Wayne Strickland, and Willem VanGemeren in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

2. So F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 175; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 138; R. Y. K. Fung, Galatians, 159–60. Thus, I would amend the NIV to read: “it was added to reveal transgressions.”

3. See also Acts 7:38, 53; Heb. 2:2. That angels were involved in the giving of the law at Sinai is not clear in the Old Testament (cf. Deut. 33:2 and the Septuagint version of Pss. 102:20; 103:4). But this view was apparently common in Judaism (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 15:136). For discussion, see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 175–76; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 139–40.

4. On Moses as mediator, see Exodus 20:19; Deuteronomy 5:5; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15, 19. See again R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 140–41.

5. This text is clearly from a period much later than the New Testament and Paul. I use it here simply to illustrate what was probably believed by many faithful law-observant Jews in New Testament times.

6. Life here means spiritual life (cf. Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:22, 36; 2 Cor. 3:6).

7. Paul uses the term “Scripture” for “law” here. This is the obvious implication of the parallels between v. 23 and vv. 24–25.

8. Galatians 3:24 begins with hoste; “what all this means” is our paraphrase of this word.

9. See above, footnote 1. It has been especially emphasized by Lutherans, but Reformed theologians give it considerable emphasis as well.

10. So F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 183; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 148–49.

11. This is the position of the theonomists; for example, see Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel,” in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 93–143. Two carefully worked out positions on the place of the law in Christian living can be seen in Knox Chamblin, “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ,” and Douglas J. Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. J. S. Feinberg (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 181–202, 203–18. See also Moo’s “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran Approach,” in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, 319–76. Moo’s latter work and my view sketched in this chapter differ only in minor details; the general view that the law is no longer the direct authority for Christians is the same.

12. An attempt to work this out can be seen in W. C. Kaiser, Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983).

13. J. R. Williams, Renewal Theology: God, the World, and Redemption (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 239–40, quotation taken from 239.

14. There are some Christian theologians who think the promise to Abraham was accepted by faith and that after faith, those who were in that covenant were to obey the law of Moses; this order, they suggest, is what Paul means by “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5). This is a good idea, and I am sure that God has always demanded a faith that results in obedience. However, Paul does not see the Mosaic law as the way believers obey. Rather, God has given his Spirit to guide his people. There is a newness and a sudden break with the past in Paul that should not be minimized. On this, see the essays of D. J. Moo mentioned in footnote 11.

15. Two books that procedurally have no specific agenda other than exposing Christians to all sides are: (1) R. G. Clouse, ed., War: Four Christian Views (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1981), which has contributions by H. A. Hoyt, M. S. Augsburger, A. F. Holmes, and H. O. J. Brown; each responds to the others views; (2) J. A. Bernbaum, ed., Perspectives on Peacemaking: Biblical Options in the Nuclear Age (Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books, 1984), which was published under the direction of the Christian College Coalition. This latter book contains the papers given during a conference on the subject at Pasadena in the spring of 1983. Both books are models of Christian discussion of difficult, emotional, but crucial issues that face us.

16. A sketch of Old Testament wars can be found in K. N. Schoville, “War; Warfare,” in NISBE, ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4:1013–18, and, in the same encyclopedia, P. C. Craigie, “War, Idea of,” 4:1018–21.

17. This view has been expounded by M. C. Lind, Yahweh Is a Warrior (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980).

18. See the survey of the evidence in L. J. Swift, The Early Fathers on War and Military Service (Message of the Fathers of the Church 19; Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1983).

19. A challenging book in this regard, applied to the issue of war, is R. J. Sider, Christ and Violence (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1979).

20. For a different view, see P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), who sees the Old Testament wars as a revelation of God’s will and activity but not his moral being.

21. A classic test-case, of course, is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, though largely pacifistic in beliefs, involved himself to the point of death in the resistance to Hitler.

1. On rituals and symbols, see the foundational study of the cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), and the more recent study of B. J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), 139–65.

2. The most complete analysis of baptism I have seen is G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962). A positive portrayal of the “grace of baptism” can be seen in G. W. Bromiley, “Baptism,” in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 113–14. He follows up this article with articles on believer’s and infant baptism (pp. 114–17). The commentary of F. F. Bruce (Galatians, 185–87) has a good discussion of the issues as they bear on Galatians.

3. See H. D. Betz, Galatians, 188–89.

4. So Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 116, ed. A. C. Coxe (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 1:257.

5. I borrow these expressions from R. N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) and point to his book for a fuller development of each of the themes.

6. R. N. Longenecker (Galatians, 157) states that the “second and third couplets have no relevance for Paul’s immediate argument.”

7. For “others,” see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 187–88. He refers to one text of Thales that speaks of his gratitude for not being born a beast, woman, or barbarian.

8. See R. N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today, 29–47; H. D. Betz, (Galatians, 190–92) provides a wealth of background evidence and ideas.

9. See R. N. Longenecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today, 48–69; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 192–95.

10. F. F. Bruce (Galatians, 189) points to Onesimus who, though a slave, may have become the bishop of Ephesus.

11. R. N. Longnecker, New Testament Social Ethics for Today, 51.

12. Ibid., 70–93; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 195–200. See also K. R. Snodgrass, “Galatians 3:28—Conundrum or Solution?,” in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. A. Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 161–81, with responses by S. C. Stanley (pp. 181–88) and W. W. Gasque (pp. 188–92). The entire book is a good one to read on the debates about women in the church. From the more traditional side, see the excellent essay of S. L. Johnson, “Role Distinctions in the Church: Galatians 3:28,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 154–64.

13. Paul’s pattern is slightly interrupted here. Whereas in the first two pairs he says “neither … nor”, here he says “not male and female” (the NIV retains the “nor”). Some have seen in this change a completely different idea, namely, the elimination of sex distinctions completely. However, it is much more probable that “and” comes from the Gen. 1:27 (Greek) text Paul was quoting and so amounts to the same idea as in the other pairs. See F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 189–190. But what Paul has in mind is not the relationship of a husband to a wife but of men to women in general.

14. For more evidence and judicious assessment of such evidence, see R. A. Tucker and W. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), esp. 19–87, for Paul’s time period. See also B. Witherington III, Women and the Genesis of Christianity, ed. A. Witherington (New York: Cambridge, 1990), which summarizes his two previous scholarly books on the subject of women.

15. The Greek expression is hypo ta stoicheia tou kosmou (“under the basic elements of the world”). Its use in Colossians 2:8, 20 has obviously different senses.

16. The classic study of this was done by J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967), 11–65. See also J. D. G. Dunn, “Prayer,” in DJG, 618–19.

17. A readable and comprehensive guide to modern studies can be found in R. A. Tucker and W. Liefeld, Daughters of the Church, 401–34.

18. The most recent work in this regard is R. C. Kroeger and C. C. Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). It is a particular failure of the work cited above of J. Piper and W. Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, that they do not devote sections to women in the ancient world, nor do they have extensive treatments of the problems on moving the ancient data into our world.

19. A standard anthology of writings, though now slightly dated, is N. Glazer and H. Y. Waehrer, eds., Woman in a Man-Made World: A Socioeconomic Handbook (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977).

1. The Greek word is tote (“then” or “formerly”); this word is often used in contrast to “now” (or “presently” in British English), as in 4:9 (see Rom. 6:20, 22; 7:5–6; 1 Cor. 13:12 [different terms but similar]; Col. 1:21–22). All of this may go back to the prophet Hosea in 1:6, 9; 2:1, 21–23.

2. This is a common complaint of Jews who lived in the Diaspora and who saw their environment as “ignorant of the true God” (see Jer. 10:25; Acts 17:20, 23; Eph. 4:18; 1 Peter 1:14).

3. These “principles” were “weak” in that they were powerless to rescue from sin and give spiritual life (see Rom. 8:3; Gal. 3:21), and “miserable” (or “poor”) in that they were unable to provide the richness of God’s blessing (cf. Gal. 4:1, where the boy is nothing more than a poor slave until manhood, at which time he inherits the blessing).

4. The term, a present middle verb, Paul uses here describes “minute observance”; so J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 172.

5. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 181.

6. F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 203.

7. See J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 173–74; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 221–23 (who also appeals to the relationship of friendship to understand the appeal of Paul); R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 189.

8. See the comments of J. R. W. Stott, Galatians, 112–13.

9. So H. D. Betz, Galatians, 223.

10. So R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 190.

11. Paul was treated as if he were a god in Acts 14:11–20, when he preached at Lystra.

12. See H. D. Betz, Galatians, 226–28. He recounts a story of Lucian that involved the friendship of Dandamis and Amizoces and how Dandamis had his eyes removed in order to release Amizoces from capture. This bothered the released one so much that he also removed his eyes.

13. These words are implied.

14. On this see W. J. Heard, “Revolutionary Movements,” in DJG, 688–98.

15. This appears to be the consensus (e.g., see F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 211–12).

16. See J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, 133–36.

17. It is far wiser not to speculate here whether Paul thought an apostate could once again be born again. I doubt very much Paul thought that, and I am also sure that such an idea was not in his mind here. He is thinking more at a church-corporate level than at an individual-personal level.

1. See the comments and quotations of ancient debaters in H. D. Betz, Galatians, 239–40. While some of these debaters thought it best to rank arguments from strongest to weakest (this would make our text the weakest of arguments), others thought an “indirect argument” and one that forced the reader to figure it out could be very effective.

2. Philo of Alexandria had already found similar contrasts in an allegorical way. He saw Abraham and Sarah as virtue, Isaac as higher wisdom, Hagar as lower learning of the schools, and Ishmael as sophistry. See his books Abraham, 68; On Flight and Finding, 128, 209–10; On the Change of Names, 255. Philo’s entire works are more often than not allegorical interpretations of Old Testament passages. A full description of Jewish exposition of the Hagar-Sarah story can be seen R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 200–206.

3. The order of these associations is arranged in an inverted manner (called a “chiasm”). I reproduce the chart of R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 213. The As, Bs, Cs, and Ds each correspond to one another. See his discussions of each. Thus:

4. It does not solve our problem to appeal to the Greek term allegoroumena (NIV: “taken figuratively”) and say that it is therefore “allegory.” The Greek term here could refer to a wealth of methods.

5. See H. D. Betz, Galatians, 239. A similar definition is found in R. N. Longenecker’s most helpful book, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 127. Longenecker’s book has a brief survey of Jewish methods of exegesis. See also F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 217.

6. On this, see the engaging discussion of C. K. Barrett, “The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians,” in Essays on Paul, ed. C. K. Barrett (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 154–70. He has been followed in general by F. F. Bruce (Galatians, 218) and R. N. Longenecker (Galatians, 197–219).

7. The NIV “ordinary way” is from kata sarka. This expression means for Paul “life outside the Holy Spirit.” See notes on 3:3.

8. There is no explicit reference of Ishmael actually persecuting Isaac in the Old Testament. There are two explanations: (1) the statement in Genesis 21:9 that Ishmael was “playing with” Isaac was understood to mean “teasing” and then throughout Jewish history came to mean “persecution,” or (2) the history of conflict between Arabs and Jews was enough to attribute such to the head of the Arabs, Ishmael (e.g., Judg. 8:24; Ps. 83:6). See R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 217; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 223–24.

9. The use of the persecution theme may refer to no more than social harassment. However, I suspect that it confirms our view that both Peter (Gal. 2:14) and the Judaizers may have used force (2:3; 4:18; 6:12).

10. See J. R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds: The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 135–79.

11. For a technical discussion of scholarship on the issue of “meaning,” see G. R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 366–415.

12. A nice survey is that of T. Lewis, “Persecution,” in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, ed. J. Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), 2:168–86; see also G. W. Bromiley, “Persecute,” in NISBE, 3:771–74.

13. Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 47. This quotation is his summary of a chapter on the “Obstacles to Evangelism.”

14. I am persuaded that this is the case. For many problems lengthy sessions with a therapist, exploring one’s history and working through emotions and problems are needed. But I also believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Spirit are what lie at the foundation of emotional and mental health. This is what it means to believe in Christianity!

15. Becky Pippert, Out of the Salt Shaker and Into the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979), esp. 15–31.

16. Ibid., 27.

1. This view of the book has been admirably demonstrated by J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988).

2. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 255.

3. See J. Blunck, “Freedom,” in NIDNTT, 1:715–21; R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty: The Origin and Nature of Paul’s Christianity (reprint edition; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 156–208; J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 46–56.

4. An excellent study of the connection between redemption and freedom can be found in E. J. Epp, “Paul’s Diverse Imageries of the Human Situation and His Unifying Theme of Freedom,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 100–116.

5. The normal Greco-Roman view of “freedom” referred more often to liberation from vice or pleasure in the sense of becoming a “master of one’s life.” It had nothing to do with the view of freedom in Paul where it is a divine work of grace. See the quotations and observations in A. J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, a Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 158–59.

6. So also R. N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 171–73; H. N. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 258–65, 288–93; J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 52–56.

7. H. Thielicke, The Freedom of the Christian Man: A Christian Confrontation with the Secular Gods, trans. J. W. Doberstein (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 14.

8. E. J. Epp, “Paul’s Diverse Imageries of the Human Situation and His Unifying Theme of Freedom,” 114.

9. This observation comes from a technical study of E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), esp. 27–29. Sanders correctly observes that the traditional view of verse 3 makes two assumptions that neither Paul nor any Jew ever states. These assumptions are those about obeying the law (the second and third are false): (1) one must keep it all; (2) one cannot do so; (3) there is no forgiveness of transgression; (4) therefore accepting the law necessarily leads to being cursed.

10. We should not give emphasis to the NIV’s use of the term “trying” and conclude that Paul is against “effort” here. The word “trying” is not in the original Greek; the expression is simply the verb dikaiousthe (“you are justified”). Since it is a present tense, many conclude that it is also “conative” (i.e., describing “attempted action”) and thus translate it, “trying to be justified.” While the action may be “conative,” the emphasis is not on the word “trying.” Rather, the present tense is used to describe action that has not yet been completed. He sees the Galatians as in a period of decision and perhaps transition and addresses them “as they walk by his soapbox.”

11. Two books, fully documented with evidence, one from each side, are: I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1969), and J. M. Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance: Staying In and Falling Away (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990).

12. This is the view of W. Hendriksen, Galatians, 37–39, 196.

13. I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God, 110. He states: “Submission to circumcision indicated a cessation of faith in Christ,” and, “It was the expression of an act of repudiation of God’s grace manifested in Christ.”

14. I have written a complete essay on the evidence of Hebrews; the study is technical, but I believe it can be used by anyone who wants to get to the heart of the issues. See “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992): 21–59. Here I work through the evidence of Hebrews on four topics: the audience, the sin being described, the exhortations, and the consequences of the sin.

15. This future acquisition of righteousness (same Greek word as “justification”) shows that Paul knows the Christian has only been inaugurated into salvation. While he believes we are justified (Rom. 5:1), he knows that full justification still awaits the believer (Gal. 5:5). On this see esp. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 441–43.

16. For athletic contests in the ancient world, see esp. H. A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976); C. E. DeVries, “Paul’s ‘Cutting’ Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1–12,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students, ed. G. F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 115–20.

17. An analysis of such passages in Paul’s letters can be found in S. N. Olson, “Pauline Expressions of Confidence in His Addressees,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 282–95. Other passages like this one are Romans 15:14; 2 Corinthians 7:4, 16; 9:1–2; 2 Thessalonians 3:4; Philemon 21.

18. That this is condemnation becomes clear by reading 2 Corinthians 11:15 and 1 Thessalonians 2:16 along with Galatians 1:8–9.

19. This refers either to his preconversion days of demanding circumcision of all who wanted to associate with Judaism (cf. Acts 9:1–3), to some supposed (but incorrect) period after his conversion and before his Gentile ministry when he did expect converts to be circumcised, or to the seeming ambivalence Paul could have on the issue (cf. Acts 16:1–3; 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 5:6).

20. See C. E. DeVries, “Paul’s ‘Cutting’ Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1–12.”

21. A tremendous survey of freedom can be found by tracing the theme of “Liberty” through the Great Books of the Western World. Mortimer Adler’s outline of the topic and its many references in the Great Books can be found in The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, ed. M. Alder and W. Gorman (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 1:991–1012.

22. Robert Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 144. See esp. 55–84, 142–63. See also his team’s Individualism and Commitment in American Life: Readings on the Themes of Habits of the Heart (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 51–95. I believe Bellah’s Habits of the Heart is must reading for anyone who wants to understand contemporary Western society.

23. M. Adler, “Liberty,” in The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of the Great Books of the Western World, volume 1, in Great Books of the Western World (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1952), 2:993. In the Great Books, a good example of this can be found in J. S. Mill, On Liberty, 43, 263–323, where Mill particularly examines the idea of political freedom, but he does this with a highly egocentric concept at its base (see esp. 293–302).

24. Robert Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart, 23.

25. For the American scene, I recommend reading the political ideals that shape our views as expounded by M. J. Adler, We Hold These Truths: Understanding the Ideas and Ideals of the Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1987), esp. 51–61 (on happiness) and 123–30 (on freedom).

26. Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, trans. C. Inda and J. Eagleson (London: SCM, 1974). I quote from page 37, but the reader is referred to the larger section (pp. 1–42).

27. This view of “freedom” is particularly associated in psychology with Carl R. Rogers. A summary of such “Person-Centered Therapy” can be found in R. J. Corsini, ed., Current Psychotherapies (3d ed.; Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1984), 142–95.

28. Robert Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart, 23.

29. H. Thielicke, The Freedom of the Christian Man, 28.

30. J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 55.

31. Augustine, The City of God, 14.11.

32. H. Thielicke, The Freedom of the Christian Man, 15.

33. M. J. Adler, “Liberty,” 995.

34. These words are similar to those on the tombstone of Martin Luther King, Jr., who in his death found that he was finally free from the oppression of racial prejudice. I use the words here in memory of his great work but with a different focus. His words come ultimately from a spiritual and were publicly used in his speech before the Lincoln Memorial. See “I Have a Dream,” in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. J. M. Washington (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 217–20 (the words used are on p. 220).

1. The NIV consistently translates the Greek term sarx with the expression “sinful nature” here. The more usual translation for this word is “flesh,” and we should read that here, for “flesh” and “Spirit” are flag terms for the two ages. Furthermore, “flesh” has connotations that “sinful nature” does not, such as a connection with the law and circumcision as well as being a part of the era that has been eclipsed by the coming of Christ. See J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 110–19, 203–9, 227–28.

2. The NIV prefers “acts” for the term erga; this term is normally translated “works.”

3. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 273.

4. J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 71.

5. The standard treatment of this can be found in W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (4th ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 17–35; I am greatly indebted to his work here.

6. The original does not have “way” but only “good.” One might infer the idea was “impulse” as well.

7. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 22–23 (the quotation is from p. 22).

8. See the discussion of J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1.247–48, where it is classed under the semantic domain of “Trouble, Hardship, Relief, Favorable Circumstances” with the subdomain of “Favorable Circumstances or State.” They list such words as “peace,” “calm,” “truly favorable,” “favorable opportunity or good occasion,” and “to succeed.”

9. BGU II. 632.11. The translation is mine from J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930), 99.

10. A nice discussion of this can be found in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 239–41.

11. There is no better biblical study of love than that of L. L. Morris, Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

12. Ibid., 276.

13. Ibid., 279.

14. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 553–54.

15. To be “under the law” means (1) to live under it as the governing principle of life; that is, one orients his or her entire life around the law of Moses. (2) It also means to be under the curse of the law (3:13) and its sin-revealing, confining powers (3:19–25). That is, when a person lives under the Spirit, he or she is not going to be held accountable to the law’s system and has been set free from its nastiness.

16. See also A. J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 138–41.

17. So J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 147–48; detailed comments on each manifestation of the flesh can be found in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 254–57, who agrees with many others in thinking this list is random and chaotic (see pp. 253–54).

18. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 148–49; J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 212–13. R. N. Longenecker (Galatians, 260) views these virtues as unordered.

19. See J. R. W. Stott, The Contemporary Christian, 146–48; on the fruit of the Spirit see pp. 146–57.

20. Not long before that conversation Professor Bruce had published a survey of the letters of Paul that was titled, in England, Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit; this book came out in an American edition with the title Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). He told me in that conversation that he was not happy with the American title because, for him, freedom was something that was connected to God’s Spirit, not just some heart experience. That he entitled his book with “Free Spirit” confirms my impression that for Professor Bruce, freedom and the Spirit were of the essence of Christian living. Anyone who reads his personal memoirs will find the same; see his In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).

21. A good book in this regard, though not always easy to read, is A. E. Harvey, Strenuous Commands: The Ethic of Jesus (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).

22. F. F. Bruce, “The Spirit in the Letter to the Galatians,” in Essays on Apostolic Themes: Studies in Honor of Howard M. Ervin Presented to Him by Colleagues and Friends on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. P. Elbert (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1985), 36–48 (quotation from p. 36).

23. An overall treatment of the Spirit from a practical and mildly charismatic (and Anglican!) side is M. Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). For a two-page summary of all that the New Testament teaches I have never seen anything like D. F. Wells, God the Evangelist: How the Holy Spirit Works to Bring Men and Women to Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 7–8.

24. See esp. G. E. Ladd, “The Holy Spirit in Galatians,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students, ed. G. F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975),211–16.

25. F. F. Bruce, “The Spirit in the Letter to the Galatians,” 48.

26. Gary Stanley, The Garimus File: A Back-Door Look at the New Testament, illustrated by John Hawk (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here’s Life Publishers, 1983). I express my thanks to Cheryl Hatch, the student who gave me this book, for the delight I have found in it.

27. Ibid., 28–29.

28. The issue, regardless, is people and their egos, not theories about how to solve the problem. If you want to solve a problem, you can; if you don’t want to solve it, no matter what theory you use, you can’t.

1. J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 167. See also the survey of options in R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 269–71.

2. Paul uses a term for “sin” here that is normally associated with the transgression of the law (paraptoma).

3. I am not against the view that “spirit of humility” means no more than “gently” or “in humility” and that the Holy Spirit is not in view; but I do think the connection with 5:23 is hard to avoid and, in light of Paul’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit in Galatians, I think the interpretation I give in the text is to be preferred. Note that Paul is addressing those who are “spiritual” (6:1). These are those who are “living in the Spirit” and who are not living under the law; thus, he is talking to those at Galatia who have not succumbed to the Judaizers. See F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 260.

4. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 161–62.

5. So also J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 158.

6. Cf. here H. D. Betz, Galatians, 299–301.

7. On this question, see D. J. Moo, “The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., ed. J. S. Feinberg (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), 208–17; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 275–76.

8. F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 263.

9. A survey of the data can be found in J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 282–84.

10. See J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 125–33.

11. Ibid., 130.

12. J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 146–77, esp. 147–55.

13. For a description of biblical principles that function behind such communities, I recommend reading R. J. Sider, ed., Living More Simply: Biblical Principles and Practical Models (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1980). The book is a collection of short and readable chapters on both biblical principles and the various ways many have applied these principles. There are chapters on family simplicity as well as on how to be more biblical economically in the professional life.

14. See the clever portrayal of this in O. Guiness, The Gravedigger File (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 71–89.

15. See above, pp. 254–55.

16. J. R. W. Stott, Only One Way, 167–69.

17. Ibid., 169.

18. I am dependent here on the introduction to Life Together, ed. J. W. Doberstein (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1954), 7–13. The definitive biography of Bonhoeffer was written by his student, E. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1970). A marvelous selection of his works can be sampled in J. DeGruchy, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Witness to Jesus Christ (San Francisco: Collins, 1988). Another moving, and shorter, biography is E. Robertson, The Shame and the Sacrifice: The Life and Martyrdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Collier Books, 1988).

19. E. Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 369.

20. This is the most profound book I have ever read on Christianity: The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1963).

21. Life Together, 20.

22. Ibid., 25.

23. Ibid., 25.

24. Ibid., 28–29.

25. Ibid., 37.

26. Ibid., 39.

27. Ibid., 42.

28. Ibid., 43.

29. Ibid., 71.

30. Ibid., 107.

31. While editing this chapter a former student of mine, Evi Haüselmann, now busily serving the Lord in Switzerland, sent me the recent publication of the letters exchanged between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his fiancée, Maria von Wedemeyer, while he was in prison. These letters, mostly unpublished, shed a new ray of light on the life of Bonhoeffer. Another book worthy of poring over is Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Life in Pictures, ed. E. Bethge, et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

32. See C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Collier, 1952).

33. C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. W. Hooper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 123.

1. The word translated “outwardly” is more literally translated “the flesh.” See the footnote on the NIV text of 5:13.

2. Or, “and.” See notes below.

3. H. D. Betz, Galatians, 313.

4. R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 287–88, where full evidence is cited.

5. See ibid., 287–88.

6. So J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 221; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 314; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 268; R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 290. It ought to be observed that at this time in history writers used all capital letters, did not separate words by a space, and did not make sure that a line ended with the end of a word.

7. F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 270.

8. I take this story from D. H. Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1970), 292.

9. The excised flesh of circumcision is surely in mind as well.

10. The addition of “of God” to “Israel” indicates a true and false Israel. The true Israel is the Israel of God; the false Israel is simply Israel.

11. So R. N. Longenecker, Galatians, 297–99, whose discussion of the expression is extensive.

12. For this, see The Little Flowers of St. Francis, trans. R. Brown (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Image Books, 1958). The original account of Brother Ugolino can be found at pp. 171–216, and an assessment by R. Brown is found at pp. 322–24. The vast majority of Protestants have explained these spontaneous bleedings of the hands, feet, and head as the result of autosuggestion.

13. A brief summary may be found by R. R. Clapp, “Reconstructionism, Christian,” in Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. D. G. Reid, et al. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 977–78.

14. A thorough critique of the movement may be found in W. S. Barker and W. R. Godfrey, Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990).

15. For those who want to read the proper document here, see A. P. Flannery, Documents of Vatican II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), document #28 (“The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church”), 350–440.

16. I borrow this quote from D. F. Watson, I Believe in the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 13 (undocumented quotation of Kierkegaard).