The Galatian Epistle

 

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

Lesson 15

 

Authorship

 

(1)          Paul (1:1; 5:2).  On Paul the apostle, see our Introducing Paul.  In his salutation Paul includes “all the brethren who are with (him)” when he writes, and as we have seen, it was Paul’s custom to include ministers of the gospel, or other Christians who were with him, in friendly salutations to the brethren.  Webster points out: 

 

“Although the letter to the Galatians opens with “Paul…and all the brothers who are with me,” the body of the letter begins with the singular verb qaumavzw (v 6) and vv 8-9 are surrounded by first person singulars (vv 10-24).  Further, the interchange between we and I in vv 8-9 is more easily explained if only Paul is in view.  The brothers in v 2, then seem to function in a supporting role, as witnesses to the truth of Paul’s gospel” (Grammar). 

 

(2)          Towards the end of the epistle we read “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand” (6:11).  The “large letters” may be a reference to the length of the letter (Luther) or the size of Paul’s writing, likely the latter.  Probably Paul took the pen from his unknown scribe at this point and wrote himself, likely to authenticate the letter and to emphasise his central points (cf 2 Thess 3:17; 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18).

 

“The early church gives unambiguous testimony to this document.  Marcion put it at the head of his Apostolikon (AD 140).  Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, and Melito quote it.  Evidences of it appear in Ignatius and Polycarp.  With the other Pauline epistles it appears in the oldest Lat., Syr., and Egyptian translations and in the Muratorian Canon of the second century.  No trace of doubt as to the authority, integrity, or apostolic genuineness of the epistle comes from ancient times” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary).

 

 

Composition: Date, Place and Circumstances

 

(1)          Paul addresses this epistle to “the churches of Galatia” (1:2) and it is the only letter of Paul which is addressed to a group of churches.  It is no easy matter to determine the location of these churches and opinion is divided between the so-called “south Galatia” position and the “north Galatia” position.  Briefly the problem is this:

 

·        In 25 BC, the Romans took over this territory and incorporated it into a province which also included territory to the south, including the cities of Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra.

 

·        In the third century BC, invading Gauls settled in the territory in north central Asia Minor and over the years this Gallic population was absorbed into the general population in the area.

 

(2)          The question is:  are the “Galatians” to whom Paul writes to be identified as the southerners of different races who were living in the Roman province of Galatia at that time or are they to be identified as that ethnic group in the north?

 

·        We know that in the course of his first missionary journey Paul visited south Galatia (Acts 13 and 14).

 

·        Later in the course of his second missionary journey Paul and his party are said to have “passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region” (Acts 16:6) and still later we read that Paul “passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia” (Acts 18:23).  Some believe that Acts 16:6 and 18:23 refer to Paul’s having visited the northern area and suggest that on the second and third journeys, Paul founded churches in north Galatia.  They argue that it is to these northern churches that the Galatian epistle is sent.

 

·        Others deny that Acts 16:6 and 18:23 refer to visits to north Galatia.  (Scholars on both sides have entered into involved discussions about the meaning of these two passages but there seems to be no consensus). 

 

(3)          This is a difficult matter to decide and arguments and counter-arguments abound. Among arguments for the south Galatia position are the following:

 

·        There is no mention in the Galatian epistle of the decree issued by the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15) dealing with the issue of circumcision and Gentile converts.  Given the nature of the Galatian problem, this is difficult to explain if the conference had already taken place.  This suggests that the letter was written before the Conference, and thus before any churches could have been established in north Galatia as a result of the activities of Acts 16:6 and 18:23.  Moreover, Peter’s error of withdrawing table fellowship from the Gentile Christians (Gal 2) is more easily explained if it happened prior to the Jerusalem decree. 

 

This seems to be a strong argument for the south Galatia position.  However, some advocates of the north Galatia reply that Paul’s failure to appeal to the Jerusalem decree is due to the fact that he has already discussed its contents with them (Acts 16:6) to no avail.

 

In turn, their opponents reply that had the decree already been issued, the Judaizers in Galatia would never have achieved the measure of success which they evidently did.  It is also argued that Peter may not have appreciated fully the implications of the Jerusalem decree.

 

·        Regardless of which view we take on Acts 16:6 and 18:23, the fact is that there is no definite information in scripture about any people or places in north Galatia known to Paul, and no definite information about any work by him in this area.  This absence of information is difficult to explain if the epistle is addressed to churches in north Galatia, and especially so if Paul had been forced to spend some time with the addressees because of illness (Gal 4:13).

 

Some counter by pointing out that (for example) Luke does not mention the church at Rome either (to which Paul sent a letter) nor Paul’s work in Arabia or Syria, Cilicia, Dalmatia or Illyria.

 

·        Since Barnabas accompanied Paul on the first missionary journey but not the second or third, Barnabas would have been known to the churches in south Galatia (Acts 13 and 14).  Paul mentions Barnabas three times (Gal 2:1, 9, 13) in connection with his argument and “(w)hen Paul says that ‘even Barnabas’ (2:13) was carried away by the insincerity of Peter and other Jews, he seems to imply that this was unexpected in view of what was known of Barnabas’ character”(Donald Guthrie, Galatians New Century Bible Commentary).

 

Some counter with the observation that Paul refers to Barnabas in 1 Cor 9:6 as well, yet he may not have been known to the Corinthians either.  However, the Galatian argument does seem to suggest that the recipients know Barnabas, favoring the south Galatia view.

 

·        According to 1 Cor 16:1 the “churches of Galatia” contributed to the collection for Jerusalem, and it is likely that the individuals mentioned in Acts 20:4 make up the party which took that gift to the saints.  The list includes two from south Galatia but none from north Galatia, favoring the south Galatia position.

 

Some counter by pointing out that the failure to mention any representatives from Corinth indicates that the list is not complete, and that besides this we are not told in so many words that these are in fact the bearers of the Jerusalem gift.

 

·        Paul seems to use provincial titles when referring to churches - Macedonia (2 Cor 8:1); Asia (1 Cor 16:19); Achaia (2 Cor 1:1), cf Syria, Cilicia (Gal 1:21) -so it is reasonable to understand “Galatia” in Gal 1:2 and 3:1 as a provincial title as well, rather than as a reference to an ethnic group (ie the inhabitants of north Galatia).  It is generally agreed that Peter had in mind the Roman provinces when he wrote “to those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1:1).  

 

Some counter by pointing out that while this is consistent with the south Galatia position, it does not establish it.

 

A number of other arguments are offered in support of the south Galatia position but in my view they are inconclusive.

(4)          Among arguments for the north Galatia position are the following:

 

·        In his commentary on Galatians, William Hendriksen (who favors the south Galatia position) plays devil’s advocate and says:   “(I)t cannot be denied that the primary meaning of this word Galatians is not ‘inhabitants of the province of Galatia,’ but Gauls, nothing else.  When, therefore, a letter is addressed ‘To the Galatians,’ convincing proof to the contrary would be needed before it would be possible to interpret this address in any other way than in harmony with the long established connotation of the word.”

 

Hendriksen himself points out however that this view reflects “patristic error” because by the time of the “fathers,” the area known as Galatia had diminished to that region inhabited by the Gauls, quite a different situation from Paul’s day.  Given this change, the fathers understanding of the designation “Galatia” may have been quite different from that which was current in Paul’s day.  Moreover, the example of Paul’s own usage of provincial titles when referring to churches counts against this.

 

·        Nothing in Galatians suggests that Paul was persecuted when he preached in Galatia, but it is clear from Acts 13 and 14 that he did suffer persecution in south Galatia.  Thus, (it is argued) in the Galatian epistle Paul speaks of his experiences, not in south Galatia but rather north Galatia.

 

·        Carson et al explain another north Galatia argument:

 

“In Acts, Antioch is called ‘Pisidian’ (Acts 13:14), while Lystra and Derbe are cities of Lycaonia (Acts 14:6).  Luke, it is said, uses such terms to denote geographic locations.  Thus when he refers to ‘the region of Phrygia and Galatia’ (Acts 16:6), we must understand him to mean geographic Phrygia and geographic Galatia - that is, North Galatia.”

 

·        Catholic Encyclopaedia lists another north Galatia argument:

 

“The fact that the Galatians were being changed so soon to another gospel is taken by Lightfoot as evidence of the characteristic fickleness of the Gauls (inhabitants of north Galatia).

 

Ramsay replies that tenacity in matters of religion has ever been characteristic of the Celts.  Besides, it is precarious to argue from the political mobility of the Gauls, in the time of Caesar, to the religious inconsistency of Galatians, whose ancestors left the West four hundred years before.”

 

A number of other arguments could be cited but we can see that none are conclusive.  In my view the south Galatia position has the edge.  There simply does not seem to be any conclusive proof that Paul had established churches in North Galatia.

 

 

(5)          Related to the above is the challenge posed by Paul’s discussion in Galatians 2:1-10 of his visit to Jerusalem.  Just how does this trip to Jerusalem fit with Luke’s record in the book of Acts?  Luke records five trips to Jerusalem:

 

·        Acts 9:26-30 (first visit).

 

·        Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 (second visit).

 

·        Acts 15:1-30 (third visit).

 

·        Acts 18:22 (fourth visit).

 

·        Acts 21:15-23:35 (fifth visit).

 

Most take the position that the visit described in Galatians 2:1-10 is either the second (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25) or the third (Acts 15:1-30).  Clearly our decision about this matter has a direct bearing upon the north-south question above because if Paul (in Gal 2) is describing visit number two (Acts 11:27-30; 12:25), the Galatian epistle could be earlier than the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and thus earlier than the establishment of any churches in north Galatia (Acts 16:6; 18:23).

 

(6)          Among the various arguments and counter-arguments in this debate we have the following:

 

·        Both Galatians 2 and Acts 15 refer to Paul, Barnabas, James and Peter which suggests that these two meetings are really one and the same.  The fact that Titus is mentioned in Galatians 2 but not in Acts 15 can be accounted for by the fact that Luke (for some reason) does not mention him in Acts.

 

·        Problems arising out of attempts by Judaizers to bind aspects of the Mosaic law upon Gentile Christians are central to both Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (Acts 15:1-3, 10; Gal 2:3, cf 4:10; 5:2-4; 6:12-13).  In both cases, the Judaizers’ influence is evident (Acts 15:5; Gal 2:4-5) and in both cases, they were firmly opposed (Acts 15:10; Gal 2:5).  Again this suggests that these two meetings are really one and the same.

 

Not all are convinced by all this however.  For example, in his commentary on Acts, F. F. Bruce argues that the Galatian 2 visit “centered around the demarcation of spheres of missionary activity....(and) circumcision receives only marginal mention (in terms which do not suggest that it was discussed at the conference at all)”.

 

·        Both Jerusalem and Antioch are mentioned in connection with the events of Acts 15 and Galatian 2 (Acts 14:26 ff; Gal 2:11).

 

·        Acts 15 (it is argued) describes a public conference (vv 2, 22) whereas Galatians 2 describes a private discussion among the leaders (v 2), and thus Luke and Paul are dealing with different events.

 

Others reply that no contradiction exists because it is likely that Gal 2:2a (“I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles”) refers to the public conference discussed in Acts 15 (two in fact) while Gal 2:2b (“I did so in private...”) refers to a separate private interview not mentioned by Luke.

 

·        In Galatians, Paul tells us that his first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem occurred three years after his encounter with Christ (Gal 1:18).  The next visit mentioned by Paul is the one described in Galatians 2:1-10 and it is most reasonable to see this as his second visit.  However according to Acts, Paul’s second visit was the one described in 11:27-30; 12:25.  Thus (it is argued), it is the Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 visit rather than the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15) visit which Paul is describing in Galatians 2:1-10.  Since Paul’s whole point is that he did not receive his gospel from the Jerusalem brethren but directly from God, we cannot argue that Paul simply fails to mention the visit of Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 because this would destroy his whole case.

 

Some who take the Jerusalem Conference position do indeed counter with the argument that Paul simply makes no reference to the Acts 11:27-30;12:25, and they explain this omission on the basis of the fact that on this occasion, he met the “elders” (Acts 11:30) rather than the apostles.  Furthermore, they deny that in Galatians 2, Paul is trying to prove that he received his gospel from men.

 

·        Some deny that the Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 visit could possibly be identical with the Galatian 2 visit because Paul states that he met with some apostles (Gal 2:9) whereas Luke records that he met with the elders of the church (Acts 11:30) and says nothing about an encounter with apostles.

 

Opponents reply that Luke’s failure to mention a meeting with the apostles does not prove that such a meeting did not take place, adding that the focus of Acts 11:27-30 is the relief fund.  Since the apostles did not take direct responsibility for such matters (Acts 6:2-4), the failure to make mention of the apostles on this occasion is not remarkable in light of Luke’s focus.  

 

Various other arguments and counter-arguments could be considered but in each case it is just not possible to draw a firm conclusion.  (For example, it is argued that the Famine visit in Acts 11 and12 must have occurred about 44-46 AD and if this was 17 years after Paul’s conversion (Gal 1:18-2:1), it would place the latter at an impossibly early date.  However, since not everyone agrees upon the relevant dates, this argument too fails to carry the day).  I am not able to decide between the Famine relief visit and the Jerusalem Conference visit.

 

(7)          If we take the south Galatia position, then clearly since Paul visited Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in the course of his first missionary journey (Acts 13 and 14), the Galatian epistle may ante-date the Jerusalem Conference, in which case the Galatian 2 visit would be identified as the Famine relief visit (Acts 11and 12).  In this event, Galatians makes no mention of the Jerusalem Council which suggests that it was written prior to Acts 15.  Some who take the south Galatian position date Galatians at about 47- 49 on the eve of the Jerusalem Council, making it the first canonical Pauline epistle.  (Tertullian maintained that the Galatian epistle was the first written by the apostle).  Others who take the south Galatia position and who identify Galatians 2:1-10 as the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) tend to date the letter in the early 50s (eg Hendriksen).  Those who take the north Galatia position usually suggest a date of about 57-58 AD since they must accommodate the Acts 16:6 and 18:23 visits to Galatia.

 

(8)          F. F. Bruce, who takes the south Galatia position and who believes that the epistle ante-dates the Jerusalem Conference, has the following in his commentary on Galatians:

 

“When, as we are told in Acts 15:1, Judean visitors came to Syrian Antioch and started to teach the Christians there that those who were not circumcised in accordance with the law of Moses could not be saved, it is antecedently probable that others who wished to press the same line visited the recently formed daughter-churches of Antioch, not only in Syria and Cilicia, as the apostolic letter indicates (Acts 15:23), but also in South Galatia.”

 

Regardless of our views concerning the date and precise destination of the letter, it is clear that it was indeed occasioned by the need to counteract the influence of Judaizing teachers who were adulterating the gospel of Christ.

 

 

Addressees

 

Regardless of our position on the north-south Galatia question, it is clear that Paul addresses his letter to a church composed mainly of Gentiles who had formerly been idol-worshippers (“slaves to those which by nature are no gods” - 4:8).

 

 

Purpose, Theme and Characteristics

 

(1)          Immediately following his introduction, and without the customary words of commendation Paul sets about the task of dealing with a deadly error threatening the Galatian churches.  He writes:  “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (1:8).

 

·        The words “so quickly” suggest that no great length of time had elapsed between Paul’s visit and the Galatians’ reception of error (although we cannot be precise).  Initially the Galatians had welcomed Paul “as an angel of God, as Christ Himself” (Gal 4:14) and he is able to remind them:  “For I bear you witness, that if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me” (Gal 4:15).

 

·        The Galatians are being disturbed or troubled by errorists who “want to distort the gospel.”  The word translated “distort” can be rendered “reverse” and as we will see the errorists in question are indeed reversing the gospel, turning it on its head.  What they are preaching is a pretend gospel. 

 

·        By listening to these errorists the Galatians are “deserting” (from a word which means to “transfer one’s allegiance” - “used both of military revolt and of a change of attitude” - Guthrie).  The middle voice is to be understood, rather than the passive.  The Galatians are actively deserting and it is still going on now.

 

(2)          It is evident, especially from the autobiographical material in chapters 2 and 3 that Paul is having to defend himself against charges and criticisms leveled against him by the errorists.  Paul’s response to his critics in this letter helps us get some idea of the substance of these accusations.

 

·        “Paul, an apostle not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ...” (1:1).  “Of particular importance is Paul’s abrupt restatement of his claim to be an apostle, precisely the point that had been denied by those who were subverting the Galatians” (Galatians James Montgomery Boice).  Evidently Paul’s authority was being undermined by the argument that he was inferior to the other apostles.

 

·        Paul insists that the gospel which he preaches “is not according to man” and that he “neither received it from man” nor “was (he)....taught it” but that it was a “revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:11-12).  Three facts prove the non-human source of Paul’s gospel:

 

Ø     He had been a fanatical persecutor of the church and a strict Pharisee zealous for the Jewish traditions (1:13-14), the suggestion being that it would have taken more than human persuasion to change Paul’s mind.

 

Ø     God, not man set Paul apart for the apostolic ministry, and the call was accompanied by a revelation from God’s Son (1:15-16a).

 

Ø     Paul did not visit Jerusalem until three years after his conversion by which time his gospel has been formulated independently of the Jerusalem apostles (1:16b-24).

 

It is likely the apostle rehearses these facts because the Judaizers are arguing:  “Paul has no authority of his own, no gospel of his own, apart from what he received from Jerusalem” (Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free).  Perhaps too:  “Paul was sent out of Antioch (Acts 13) not Jerusalem.”  Paul’s point is that his gospel is not derived from the Jerusalem leaders and does not depend upon their authority.  It is a revelation from God and rests upon divine authority.

 

·        Having stressed the independence of his gospel, Paul next emphasizes the unity between himself and the Twelve.  It is likely he does so because his critics are alleging that Paul’s doctrine conflicts with that of the other apostles.  Perhaps their argument goes something like this:

 

“(Paul)...has not given you the whole Jerusalem gospel.  The Jerusalem believers, with their leaders revere the Law of Moses; every man among them has been circumcised...  (To be on the same footing) you must be circumcised too.  If Paul told you otherwise, he had no authority to do so.  His gospel is all right so far as it goes, but it is defective; be ruled by us and have the deficiencies made good at once” (ibid).

 

Paul responds first of all by recounting details of his visit to Jerusalem (see our discussion above on 2:1-10) with Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile.

 

Ø     He submitted his gospel to “those who were of reputation” (2:2) which is evidently how Paul’s opponents described James, Peter and John.  Titus was a test case, and the Jerusalem leaders did not insist that Titus submit to circumcision (2:3).

 

Ø     He affirms that the Jerusalem leaders added nothing to his gospel (2:6).  It was in no way defective.

 

Ø     He speaks of his confrontation with Peter when the latter’s withdrawal of table fellowship from Gentile Christians threatened to compromise the gospel message (2:11-14).  The point:  Not only was Paul’s gospel independent of the apostles in Jerusalem; not only was it in harmony with that of the Jerusalem apostles - but also the gospel of justification preached by Paul could not be compromised even when challenged by the behavior of one such as Peter.

 

·        Perhaps too Paul’s critics accused him of being a man-pleaser and of preaching circumcision when it suited him.  In 1:10 he asks “For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God?” Perhaps the accusation is that Paul does not compel Gentiles to be circumcised because he is attempting to curry favour with them. Paul responds:  “You can see from this letter that I am not interested in pleasing men!” Again in 5:11 Paul asks:  “But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?  Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.”  Evidently Paul’s point is:  “If it is true that I preach circumcision when it suits, why are the Jews persecuting me?”

 

Thus, much of the Galatian epistle is devoted to Paul’s defense of his ministry against Jewish errorists who evidently claimed greater authority than Paul on the grounds that they had been commissioned by the Jerusalem leaders.  Paul distinguishes these errorists from the congregation (1:7; 4:17) which suggests that they had come into the church from outside.  He uses the second person when referring to the Galatians (eg 1:6, 11; 3:1; 4:12-6:18) but the third person when referring to the errorists (eg 1:7; 4:17; 5:10, 12; 6:12-13).  The errorists are driven by selfishness:  “Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ” (6:12).

 

(3)          Not only were the Jewish errorists attempting to “compel” the Galatians to submit to circumcision (6:12) so that they may “boast” of their influence over Gentile Christians (6:13), but evidently they had persuaded the Galatians to “observe (Jewish) days and months and seasons and years” (4:10).  Paul addresses the Galatians as “you who want to be under law” (4:21) and as “you who are seeking to be justified by law” (5:4).

 

“Putting all this together, it seems that the false teachers saw Christianity as a modified Judaism; they were teaching that to be in a covenant relationship to God means to submit to the requirements of the law of God.  Therefore they were persuading the Galatians to submit to the way of the law instead of enjoying freedom in Christ” (Carson et al).

 

Paul must respond to the notion that an individual can acquire merit in God’s sight and he does so as follows:

 

·        In 2:15-21 Paul sets forth some of the most significant truths of Christianity:  “...a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus...by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified...  For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed (ie justification based upon works of the law of Moses), I prove myself to be a transgressor (v 18).  For through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God (v 19)...  I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness (justification) comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”  Any error threatening the doctrine of justification based on faith leads to a distortion of the gospel, and this is the great danger posed by the Judaizers.

 

·        In 3:1-5 Paul reminds Galatians of how they received the Holy Spirit.  He reminds them that it was not by “works of law” (anarthrous) but by hearing (the gospel) with faith.  Paul’s gospel, not the legalists’ doctrine, had been the means of their obtaining the Holy Spirit.  Since they “began by the Spirit” (ie the “hearing with faith”), how “foolish” to believe that they could be “perfected” (or come to the intended goal of spiritual maturity) by a return to “the flesh” (ie the law and all its rites - v 3).

 

·        In 3:6-9 Paul affirms that Abraham himself, the very father of the Jewish nation was justified by faith.  While “those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer” (3:9) those who are “of the works of the Law are under a curse” (v 10).  (Paul is not disparaging Law, but he is arguing that Law is not the source of justification).  Thankfully “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (3:10-14).  God’s promise of salvation in Abraham’s seed (Christ) was not nullified by the Mosaic law which came 430 years later, since salvation is based upon promise not law keeping, and the Mosaic law was (not a source of salvation but) a tutor to lead us to Christ (3:15-25).  Abraham’s true sons are those who possess his faith (3:26-29).  In Christ we are sons not slaves (4:1-7) and a return to law observance is a return to slavery (4:8-20), the same kind of slavery to which they had been subject when they were idol-worshippers (4:8-9).

 

The allegory of Hagar (representing “Jerusalem” (Judaism and slavery) and Sarah (representing freedom in Christ) graphically illustrates this point (4:21-31).  Called to freedom in Christ, the Galatians must not return to slavery (5:1-12).  In fact, if justification came by means of law then the whole law must be observed not just a token such as circumcision (5:3).  This is a serious matter says Paul.  (“You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” - 5:4).

 

·        Paul closes (6:11-18) with the reminder that in Christ “neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (6:15) and a final warning to his opponents:  “From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus” (6:17).  Clearly then Paul’s defense of his gospel against the error of the Judaizers occupies much of the epistle.

 

(4)          It is likely that Paul’s opponents have also charged that Paul’s gospel leads to license and ungodly living.  It is also likely that we are to view 5:13-6:10 as Paul’s response to this suggestion.  The apostle’s point here is that Christian liberty, correctly understood results in godliness.  The child of God is led by “the Spirit” rather than by “the flesh” (5:16) and his life will manifest the “fruit of the Spirit” (love, joy etc) rather than the “deeds of the flesh” (5:19-23).  Examples of Spirit-led living are seen in readiness to bear one another’s burdens (6:1-6) and readiness to engage in good works (6:7-10).  (As we have seen in our discussion of the Roman Epistle, Paul counters the suggestion that grace encourages sinful living with the question “What then shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” (Rom 6:1). His answer: “May it never be!” (Rom 6:2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Outline

 

(1)          Paul’s Gospel is of Divine Origin (Gal 1 and 2).

 

(2)          The Gospel not Law represents God’s Eternal Plan to Save Man (Gal 3 and 4).

 

(3)          True Liberty is being led by the Spirit (Gal 5 and 6).