The warning in this verse indicates that Paul pictures the Galatians as furiously fighting each other. The verb translated hurting is literally “to bite” and refers primarily to snakes and beasts. The verb translated harming is literally “devour” or “gulp down,” again used of wild beasts. It is clear, therefore, that Paul is comparing the Galatians to wild animals, and Good News Translation makes this explicit. Other translations do not mention animals at all (the phrase like wild animals does not occur in the Greek text) but try to recapture the image by the way they render the verbs (Jerusalem Bible “if you go snapping at each other and tearing each other to pieces”; New English Bible “if you go on fighting one another, tooth and nail”). In referring to animals, it is important to identify the kinds of animals which would normally be wild or vicious, for example, “if you behave like wild animals,” or “… savage animals.” Hurting and harming each other may be rendered in some languages as “causing pain and suffering to one another.”

The expression watch out may be rendered simply as “beware,” or “I warn you.”

The result of all this, Paul asserts, is mutual destruction: you will completely destroy one another. The verb translated “completely destroy” is literally “to consume.” It is often used to describe the destruction caused by fire. The basic idea is that everything is destroyed—nothing remains.

What will be destroyed is either the Galatians themselves (New American Bible “you will end up in mutual destruction!”; also Good News Translation, New English Bible) or the Christian fellowship (Phillips “you destroy your fellowship altogether”; Jerusalem Bible “you will destroy the whole community”).

In light of Paul’s use of the present tense in the verbs, he is evidently thinking of an actual case. This means that the false teachers’ efforts have resulted in chaos and confusion among the Galatian believers, and one should translate this as an actual fact.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The leaders are finally identified as James, Peter, and John. James is probably the same as the one identified as the Lord’s brother in 1.19. John is probably the Apostle of that name, the brother of another James (Acts 12.1-2), one of the sons of Zebedee. The order of their names probably suggests their position in the Jerusalem church.

These three men are described as those who seemed to be the leaders (literally, a figurative expression “who are reputed to be pillars”), a description which most commentaries interpret as synonymous with similar expressions in 2.2 and 2.6. “Pillars” is a designation of those upon whom responsibility rests; it was used by Jews in speaking of the great teachers of the Law.

Recognized that God had given me this special task is literally “when they perceived the grace that was given to me.” Many interpreters understand this to be essentially synonymous with “I had been entrusted with the gospel” in verse 7. Others, however, understand “grace” to mean the favor or privilege which God has given to Paul in making him an apostle (compare Rom 1.5). The implicit subject of the expression (God) is made explicit in Good News Translation and other translations (for example, Phillips, New English Bible). Had given me this special task may be rendered as “had caused me to have this special work,” “had told me that this was my work to do,” or “had assigned me to this special work.”

It is particularly important to make clear the relation between the first part of this verse and what follows, namely, the fact that the leaders extended the hand of fellowship to Barnabas and Paul. This result is indicated by the conjunction so. In some languages it may be necessary to say “because of this,” “as a result of this,” or even “because they recognized this.”

They shook hands with Barnabas and me, as a sign that we were all partners is literally “they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” The whole action means entering into a covenant, a binding agreement between two parties, a pledge that they will abide by what is agreed upon. “Fellowship” introduces the idea of partnership. While many translations retain the original expression, others restructure it to express its meaning more clearly (New English Bible “accepted Barnabas and myself as partners, and shook hands upon it”; Jerusalem Bible “shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership”). In a number of languages, however, the fact of shaking hands does not necessarily indicate agreement. In fact, it may suggest merely that Paul and Barnabas were at the point of leaving. A more appropriate equivalent in some languages may be “they showed that they were in agreement with Barnabas and me,” “they showed that they agreed with us by shaking hands with us,” or “they made us partners by shaking hands with us.”

Partners may be expressed as “persons who were working together,” “persons who shared work,” or even “persons who saw that one another’s work was also good.”

The agreement itself involved a division of labor. Barnabas and I would work among the Gentiles and they among the Jews is literally “that we to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.” The implicit action may be “go” (as in most translations), “preach,” or the more inclusive expression (as in Good News Translation), work among.

It is not clear whether the division here described is territorial or racial. The problem is particularly complex because Jews were scattered in the so-called Gentile lands and there were many Gentiles living in Palestine. Does “Gentiles” mean Gentile lands or Gentile people, and does “circumcised” mean Jewish lands or Jewish people? It is possible that what is meant here is people and that the division is racial rather than territorial. But it is more likely that the meaning is that Paul would preach the gospel in Gentile lands, but to Gentiles and Jews, while Peter would work in the Jewish homeland, Palestine. In order to indicate the regional meaning involved, one may translate “we would work where the Gentiles mainly lived, and they where the Jews mainly lived.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The first part of this verse may be translated literally as “But the scripture shut up all things under sin.”

The word scripture is generally used by Paul to refer to a passage of the Old Testament, but there is no single passage that can fit this context. The closest parallels are Deuteronomy 27.26 and Psalm 143.2, which Paul has already quoted (2.16; 3.10). Again, as in verse 8, scripture is personified, and here it is assigned the function of jailer. But since the reference is to a passage of scripture (even though we are not sure what that passage is), Good News Translation is right in rendering it the scripture says (Jerusalem Bible “scripture makes no exceptions when it says”; New English Bible “scripture has declared the whole world to be prisoners”). As in many instances, it may be necessary to modify a statement such as the scripture says to read “a person may read in a passage of scripture,” or “some words of the scripture indicate.”

The clause “shut up all things under sin” (literal rendering) presents many translation problems. “Shut up” is a technical term used in reference to prisoners, hence “to confine” or “to imprison.”

The whole world (Good News Translation, New English Bible; Jerusalem Bible “everywhere”) is used elsewhere by Paul to mean the whole universe. While this is probably correct, it is possible to interpret this expression to refer only to people (Phillips “all men”).

“Under sin” may be interpreted in the light of verse 10, and parallel to “under a curse,” and therefore will mean under the power of sin (Knox “under the bondage of sin,” New English Bible “in subjection to sin,” New American Bible “under the constraint of sin”).

The whole expression “shut up under sin” thus means being under the power and bondage of sin, with no possibility of escape. It is possible to drop the metaphor, as Good News Translation does. Some translations, however, still retain it (New English Bible “the whole world to be prisoners in subjection to sin”).

In a number of languages it is practically impossible to personify sin. Sin refers to events in which people themselves participate, that is, “people sin,” and therefore it is extremely difficult to speak of sin as being a person-like agent that would have power to control the whole world or all people. The closest equivalent to the power of sin is in many languages “the desire to sin” or “the strong desire to sin.” Therefore, the whole world is under the power of sin may be rendered in some instances as “everybody in the world is controlled by his strong desire to sin,” “strong desires to sin command everyone,” “… tell people what they must do,” or “… order them about.” In these expressions it is the desire which is personified and not the sin itself.

The purpose of the whole world being under the power of sin is expressed in the latter half of the verse (literally, “in order that the promise out of faith in Jesus Christ may be given to those who believe”). “The promise” is the promise given to Abraham, and, as in verse 14, the reference is not to the promise itself, but to its content, hence the rendering of Good News Translation the gift which is promised (Revised Standard Version “what was promised”; New English Bible “the promised blessing”). Whether this refers to the gift of the Holy Spirit or to the gift of right relationship with God is hard to ascertain.

“Out of faith” expresses the ground on which the giving takes place, therefore on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ (New English Bible “so that faith in Jesus Christ may be the ground on which the promised blessing is given”).

To those who believe is in contrast to the whole world. It is possible to interpret this as a technical term, namely, “the believers,” the Christians. However, more likely Paul is not using it here in this sense but in the sense of anyone who trusts God or Jesus Christ.

In some languages it may be necessary for this verse not only to restructure what may be interpreted as a final purpose clause (though Good News Translation treats this clause as result), but even to break the purpose clause into two sentences. For example, one may translate “so that God could give to those who believe in Jesus Christ what he promised. What he promised comes to them only by their trusting in Jesus Christ.” In other languages it may be best to express on the basis of as being a condition, for example, “what God promised if they trusted in Jesus Christ,” or “what God promised to give them if they put their trust in Jesus Christ.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse presents difficulties, both in the text and in the interpretation. The textual problems center on two points: whether Hagar is in the text or not, and whether the verse starts with an additive connective, “but” or “and,” or with “for” or “because.” The omission of Hagar from the text is attested by many old and reliable manuscripts and is reflected in some translations (Jerusalem Bible “since Sinai is in Arabia”; New English Bible “Sinai is a mountain in Arabia”). It seems more likely, however, that Hagar was in the original text, and that the omission can be explained by the problems that arose out of trying to understand what Paul meant. In other words, it is much easier to explain the verse with the omission of Hagar (New English Bible “Sinai is a mountain in Arabia and it represents the Jerusalem of today”).

Assuming, then, that Hagar is part of the original text, we are confronted with the problem of interpreting it. What does Paul mean by the statement “Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia” (Revised Standard Version)? The main explanations are as follows: (1) Hagar is sometimes used to refer to Mount Sinai. This could either be because Hagar in Arabic means Mount Sinai (Twentieth Century “the word Hagar meaning in Arabia [sic] Mount Sinai”), or that Mount Sinai is called Hagar by the Arabs (New American Bible “the mountain Sinai [Hagar] is in Arabia”). (2) This could be a play on words, based on the Arab word hajar which means “stone,” and therefore corresponds to the Mosaic tablets. No translation takes this alternative. (3) It could be that Paul is simply continuing his argument in verse 24 and making the correspondence between Hagar and Mount Sinai more explicit, to make sure that the Jews will not miss the point. In this case, the relation would be understood as stands for (as in Good News Translation) or “represents.” This third point seems to be the most likely meaning.

In rendering Hagar, who stands for Mount Sinai, it is necessary in some languages to say “When one speaks of Hagar, one is speaking of Mount Sinai,” or “In these comparisons, the name for Hagar is the name for Mount Sinai.”

The addition of the phrase in Arabia also gives rise to many theories, among which are (1) Paul wants to emphasize that Mount Sinai is outside the Promised Land, accentuating the fact that the Law was given at a time when the Jews had not yet received the promise of God; (2) Paul wishes to specify Arabia as a land of slavery, thus suggesting that Hagar can only have children who are slaves; (3) Paul simply added the phrase as geographical information, to make sure that his Gentile readers will not miss the point; (4) Paul wants to emphasize that Mount Sinai is in Arabia, the land of the descendants of Ishmael. We cannot be sure as to Paul’s motives, but the third of these options seems to be the least problematic and therefore to be preferred. One should resist the temptation of reading various kinds of interpretation into a simple statement of fact.

Hagar not only stands for Mount Sinai, but she is also a figure of (literally “corresponds to”) the present city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem here should be understood as standing for the whole Jewish nation with Jerusalem as its center. The concluding phrase in slavery with all its people is literally “in bondage with her children,” with “children” rightly understood as referring to the whole Jewish people and not simply to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The connection with Hagar is clearly obvious: just as Hagar can only bear children who are slaves, so the whole Jewish system of seeking for God’s approval by means of following the Law only results in the Jews becoming slaves to the Law and not children of God. Some commentators find a double sense in this reference to Jerusalem: a Jerusalem under Roman occupation and under bondage to the Law.

Is a figure of the present city of Jerusalem may be rendered as “may also be compared to the present city of Jerusalem,” or “… to what is now the city of Jerusalem.” The introduction of the comparison may also be stated as “we can also compare Hagar to the city of Jerusalem,” with the first part of the verse rendered as an independent clause also.

The phrase in slavery with all its people may require some expansion in certain languages, for example, “Jerusalem is like a slave, and so are all of its people,” “… all of the people related to Jerusalem,” or “… all of the people who look to Jerusalem.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

When Paul exhorts his readers to help carry one another’s burdens, he may have in mind what he has referred to in the previous verse, namely, the act of setting right a wrongdoer in the fellowship. The root of the word translated burdens, however, refers metaphorically to anything borne, either good (2 Cor 4.17) or bad (Acts 15.28; Rev 2.24; Gal 5.10). It is possible, therefore, to interpret burdens as a general term, referring to any problems that might befall a Christian.

The position of one another in the Greek is emphatic, meaning that Paul wants to stress it, but what he intends is not completely clear. Two interpretations are possible: (1) he may be harking back to 5.10 and therefore exhorting his readers to put emphasis, not on the burdens of following the Law, but on the burdens of helping each other; or (2) he may be emphasizing the nature of the Christian fellowship, where concern for one another is the basic rule, as he has already expounded it (5.13-14).

Though the figurative language involved in help carry one another’s burdens is very meaningful in many languages, it can be relatively meaningless in others. In some instances it may be possible to change the metaphor into a simile, for example, “help carry one another’s burdens, as it were,” but in other instances it may be better to shift the metaphor into a nonfigurative expression, for example, “help one another in difficulty,” or “if anyone is in difficulty, you should help him.”

In this way is literally “thus,” which has the connotation of “in doing this” (Knox “then”). In other words, it is in helping each other that they obey the law of Christ. The word translated obey is literally “to fulfill,” a verb which denotes the idea of completeness (Phillips “live out”).

The expression the law of Christ means either the law of God as shown by Christ in his life or the law which Christ taught. In either case, Paul is asserting, that if the whole law is fulfilled in the concept of love (as he has already expressed in 5.14), then to share in each other’s burdens is to be obedient to that law. In this context you will obey the law of Christ may be rendered as “you will obey the commandment that Christ gave,” “… the law that Christ taught,” or “… what Christ commanded.”

As the footnote in TEV indicates, there is an alternative to the reading translated you will obey. This reading has another imperative, rather than a future indicative. The meanings of both readings, however, are essentially the same, especially in light of the word “thus,” for this word makes it clear that it is by bearing the burdens of others that a person obeys the law of Christ—it is not as if there were two separate commands, one about bearing and one about obeying. This is really just what the future tense is also saying.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Let me tell you may be rendered as, “I want you to know,” or “I want to make it perfectly clear.”

Paul affectionately addresses his readers as my brothers. Among Jews the word “brother” was used for the members of any given family or tribe or sect. Early Christians carried this usage over into their fellowship and addressed each other as “brothers.”

The gospel I preach could be understood either as referring to that particular message which Paul preached to the (Galatians New American Bible “The gospel I proclaimed to you”; New English Bible “the gospel you heard me preach”) or as a general reference to the message which Paul continued to proclaim (as in Good News Translation, compare Moffatt “The gospel that I preach”). The verb preach is often rendered in a form which indicates habitual action, for example, “the gospel that I customarily preach,” or “… announce.”

Is not of human origin is literally “is not according to man,” and may mean that the gospel (1) is not of human origin, (2) is not dependent on human authority, or (3) is not a human gospel. Some translations (notably New American Bible, New English Bible, along with Good News Translation) follow the first of these alternatives, while others adhere to the third (for example, Jerusalem Bible “the Good News … is not a human message,” Moffatt “is not a human affair”). The closest equivalent to is not of human origin may be “was not thought out by people,” “people did not cause it to be,” or “people did not start it.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

So that translates a Greek connective which could be rendered either as “but” or as “and.” Most translators take the connective to be continuative, indicating that what follows is a further explanation of the previous verse, and not adversative to it (for the adversative, compare King James Version “nevertheless, I live,” Knox “and yet I am alive”).

In it is no longer I who live, Paul may be saying that under the old system of the Law, the “I” was prominent, it was the “I” that lived. To depend on the Law is to put emphasis on one’s own powers to do what it requires. Instead of that, it is now Christ who lives in him. “Christ in me” is as intimate as the converse expression “in Christ.” Many languages do not have a so-called expletive such as it which may occur at the beginning of a clause and refer to something occurring later in the same clause. However, the same idea may be expressed as “the one who is living is no longer I,” or “I am not the one who is still living, but Christ is the one who is living in me.”

It is impossible in some languages to speak of “living a life,” and therefore one cannot translate literally this life that I live now. One may, however, translate as “the way I live now,” “the manner in which I live,” or “how I am now living.”

The next statement makes the previous one much clearer: Paul’s new life is based on faith in the Son of God. The Son of God is one of the titles which the early Christians used to refer to Jesus Christ. Again, faith is trust in and commitment to Christ. By faith in the Son of God may be rendered as “by trusting in God’s Son,” or “by putting my confidence in God’s Son.”

Paul mentions two acts of Christ: (1) who loved me and (2) gave his life for me. The word for “love” here suggests unmerited, undeserved, self-giving love, while the word for “give” suggests Christ’s voluntary surrender of himself to die on the cross (compare Phillips “sacrificed himself for me”; New English Bible “gave himself up for me”). This dying is now identified as a dying for me, that is, Christ’s act on the cross is intensely personal; it is as if he died for Paul alone, but there is nothing self-centered in Paul’s statement.

In some languages it is quite impossible to speak of “giving one’s life.” One can, however, “willingly die” or “willingly suffer death.”

For me may be indicated as a benefactive in a number of languages, for example, “for my benefit.” But in other instances it may be necessary to translate as “in order to help me.”

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The right time translates the Greek phrase “the fullness of time,” for which a variety of meanings has been suggested by various commentators. The most probable is that Paul has in mind the end of the reign of the Law (and therefore of man’s hopelessness) and the beginning of a new era when the decisive aspect is not what man does or attempts to do, but what God does on behalf of man. Whatever meaning we can see in the expression, the main thing to remember is that the emphasis is on a time designated by God as appropriate for his act in order to assure man’s deliverance from helplessness and subservience to the Law and to those forces that are opposed to God (compare Phillips “the proper time”; Jerusalem Bible “the appointed time”; New American Bible “the designated time”). In a number of languages one simply cannot speak of “time coming.” One can often say, however, “when it was the right time,” “… the right occasion,” “when the right day was happening,” or “when it was the day that God had decided upon.” In some languages it may be necessary to indicate in what respect a particular time or occasion is “right,” and the quality of being right can only be stated in some languages with reference to God’s determining it as being right. For this reason one must specify the occasion as being appropriate in terms of God having designated it or selected it.

It is possible to interpret the expression God sent his own Son to mean God’s sending of Jesus from Galilee to fulfill his ministry in other parts of Palestine. It is more likely, however, that Paul is referring to God’s act of sending his Son from his pre-existent state into the world. In some languages it is almost essential to indicate the place to which God’s Son was sent, and therefore it may be necessary to say “God sent his own Son into the world.” This particular interpretation seems to be by far the more acceptable of the two.

The son of a human mother is literally “born of a woman.” In the Bible this is an idiomatic expression referring simply to what is human (see Job 14.1 and Matt 11.11). The emphasis, therefore, is not on the human mother, but on the fact that the Son took upon himself human nature; in other words, he became a human being. The closest equivalent of the son of a human mother may in some languages be simply “his mother was a human being,” “a woman gave birth to him,” or even “he had a mother just as other people do”; but often a more appropriate rendering would be “he became a person” or “he came as a man.”

Lived under the Jewish Law is literally “born under law,” although the Greek construction would suggest “subject to law” as a more accurate rendering. The absence of the article before “law” is interpreted by some to indicate the general nature of the phrase. It could then refer simply to Jesus’ status as man, since all men are under law of some kind. There is, however, an undeniable reference to the Jewish Law. What Paul very likely means is that the Son of God took upon himself human form and was subject to all the requirements of the Jewish Law. There is a serious complication involved in a literal translation of the expression lived under the Jewish Law, since in a number of languages an expression such as “under the law” would suggest illegal activity, that is to say, he “lived like an outlaw.” It may therefore be necessary to say “he lived in obedience to the Jewish Law,” or better “he lived in a society which had the Jewish Law.” It is true, of course, that Jesus did violate a number of the ceremonial laws in order to reach people, but it is equally true that his general pattern of life was in conformance with Old Testament regulations.

Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .