The metaphor of verse 7 is continued here, but with a slight change, for attention is now drawn not to the seed, but to the ground on which the seed is sown. “Flesh” and “spirit” are presented as two kinds of fields yielding different harvests: “corruption” from the former, and “eternal life” from the latter.

There is a divergence of opinion as to whether “flesh” and “spirit” here mean the same thing as in 5.16-17. Some difference can be detected in the way these terms are used. In the previous case “flesh” and “spirit” are sources of action; here they seem to be recipients or beneficiaries. Accordingly, some take these terms to refer to two aspects of the human personality: the physical and the nonphysical (spiritual, intellectual, et cetera). To “sow to his own flesh” then would mean to concentrate on satisfying bodily appetites, like food, drink, and other physical needs. Conversely, to “sow to the spirit” is to channel one’s energies in the enrichment of the nonphysical aspects of life. Most translators, however, take Paul’s usage here to be the same as in chapter 5.

It is frequently necessary to change the figurative expressions in this verse from metaphors to similes, for example, “If a person, so to speak, plants his natural desires in the field….” Or it may be necessary to make the figurative comparison even more obvious, for example, “If a man encourages his natural desires, like a person who plants grain in a field, then the result is going to be his death,” or “… he will have a harvest just as the farmer does, but the harvest will be his death.”

The word which Good News Translation translates as death is literally “corruption,” which some take to refer primarily to moral and spiritual decay. It is likely, however, that it also refers to physical decay and therefore should be understood as a term for death in a general sense.

If “spirit” here has the same reference as in 5.16, then it means the Holy Spirit. To plant in the field of the Spirit is to concentrate on the fruit of the Spirit as previously mentioned, the result of which is eternal life. This term is quite common in the Johannine writings, but Paul uses it less frequently. The emphasis is not on something which does not end but on the positive qualities that go with a life which is lived in the Spirit.

The second condition in this verse, referring to the field of the Spirit, is even more complicated than the first figurative condition and in some instances may require considerable amplification for the relations to be made clear, for example, “If like a farmer who plants grain in a field, a person does his deeds by the help of the Spirit, then the Spirit will cause him to have a harvest, and this will be the true life that never ends.” While specifying the various relations in this manner may be necessary to convey the meaning, a considerable amount of the impact of the figurative language is lost in the explicit details.

The future tenses in this verse lead some scholars to interpret it eschatologically, as referring primarily to the ultimate harvest, perhaps at the Day of the Lord, an interpretation which seems to be reinforced by the next verse.

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 .

In this verse and the next, Paul mentions his first visit to Jerusalem. It was three years later is literally “after three years,” but the purpose of this phrase is not merely chronological; rather it is used to put forth the argument that Paul did not establish contacts with the Jerusalem apostles for quite some time (Phillips “It was not until three years later”). It is difficult to determine just when these three years began. There are two possibilities: (1) from his return from Arabia or (2) from his conversion. Most commentators favor the latter. In some languages it may be necessary to stipulate the time from which the three years are to be reckoned, and so it may be necessary to say “three years after I returned to Damascus,” or “three years after I became a believer.” Note, however, that the latter of these alternatives is to be preferred.

To obtain information from Peter involves a verb which can mean either to gather information from him (Good News Translation) or to get acquainted with him (New English Bible “to get to know Cephas”; Moffatt “to make the acquaintance of Cephas”). In a number of languages the closest equivalent and most neutral way of expressing the meaning is “to talk with Peter.”

Peter is “Cephas” in the Greek; and “Cephas” (meaning “Rock”) is the equivalent of “Peter.”

Two weeks is literally “fifteen days.” The emphasis here is on the brevity of the visit; it would have been impossible for Paul to become a disciple of the Jerusalem apostles just by visiting Peter for such a short period of time. In order to emphasize the brevity of the visit and to play down this particular event, it is possible to translate this as “I stayed with him for just two weeks.”

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 is a repetition of verse 2, but with a slight shift of focus. It summarizes Paul’s appeal to the experience of the Galatians. Again, as in the case of the question in verse 2, it may be necessary to shift this rhetorical question into the form of a statement, for example, “God does not give you the Spirit and cause miracles to happen among you because you do what the Law requires; rather, he gives you the Spirit and causes miracles to happen among you because you hear the good news and believe it.” It is possible in a number of receptor languages to eliminate some of the redundancy in this type of statement by employing appropriate pronouns to refer to the giving of the Spirit and the working of miracles.

Does God give you the Spirit is literally “He that supplies the Spirit to you.” The pronoun obviously refers to God, and this is made explicit in most translations. The verb for give expresses the idea of “supply abundantly,” “giving freely and liberally.” Paul’s use of the present tense form indicates that, for him, the experience of receiving the Spirit is not merely an experience in the past but can be thought of as being in progress, even up to the time of his writing this letter. The continuity in God’s giving his Spirit may be expressed in some languages as “he constantly gives the Spirit,” “he continually gives the Spirit,” or “he is always supplying the Spirit.”

Miracles refers to what are often spoken of as the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit. Among you may also be understood as “in you,” but most translations understand it in the same sense as Good News Translation. In a number of languages miracles are spoken of as “wonderful events” or “unexpected happenings,” while in other languages they may be referred to by idiomatic expressions, for example, “longnecked things” (referring to the fact that people stretch their necks to watch miracles) or “mouth-opening happenings” (since in surprise people are supposed to open their mouths).

What the Law requires and hear the gospel and believe it are to be understood in the same sense as in verse 2. For the Law it may be necessary to use a plural form as a collective, namely, “laws,” and, in some instances, to specify that these are “the laws that came through Moses.” Otherwise, the reference would imply merely local government regulations. Similarly, it may be necessary to indicate the object of the “Good News,” since in some languages one cannot simply speak of “Good News” without indicating what the Good News is about. In this instance it would be “the Good News about 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 .

Paul now gives an example of the way the Galatians are becoming slaves all over again, namely, their strict observance of all kinds of celebrations. The verb translated pay special attention to contains the elements of observing or keeping something religiously, or scrupulously observing something to the minutest detail. The other element that Paul obviously has in mind is that the Galatians are doing all these things because of their belief that it is through these observances they can be reconciled to God. Pay special attention to may be expressed in some languages as “you observe as being very important,” “you have religious festivals on,” or “you count as part of your worship to God.”

The expression days, months, seasons, and years probably refers to the Jewish system of religious feasts, since it is the Judaizers who are the strong opponents of Paul in Galatia. If this is so, days could refer to the sabbaths, and other feasts celebrated only for a day; months to the monthly celebrations (for example new moons, as in Num 10.10); seasons to the annual festivals which were not limited to a single day, for example Passover, Tabernacles, et cetera. (see 2 Chr 8.13); and years to the New Year celebrations, the year of Jubilee, or perhaps the Sabbatical year. One cannot be very sure as to the contents of these terms, but, taken together, they simply refer to the total system of celebrations observed by the Jews at that time.

There is little or no difficulty involved in an expression such as days, since all languages have some means of expressing such a time unit. The term for months is often simply equivalent to “moons,” and seasons may be rendered as “special times during the year.” Words for years are often expressed in somewhat idiomatic forms, for example, “when the rains come back,” “the seasons of the sun,” or “tying up the sun” (an expression in the Quechua languages of South America in which special strings, called “khipus,” were used as means of counting the years through tying particular types of knots).

Paul does not suggest that the observance of these feasts is bad in itself; the implication of what he says is that it is wrong to regard the observance of these feasts in a legalistic manner, that is, in order to win the approval of God.

It is observed by some that it is strange that Paul does not here refer to the practice of circumcision, and the suggestion is made that the Judaizers actually began their campaign among the Galatians with elements of Judaism which were less repulsive and which had affinity with the pagan practices the Galatians were used to. More probably, however, this is no reflection at all on the approach of the Judaizers; it is simply Paul’s approach. He selects those elements in Jewish ritual which have obvious affinities with pagan worship to show that adoption of these and other practices related to the Jewish Law is practically a return to the paganism which they forsook when they accepted the Christian message.

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 consists of a conditional clause, “if I still preach circumcision,” and a rhetorical question, “why am I still persecuted?” The conditional clause could reflect either a charge against Paul by his enemies or a hypothetical case: “if I were preaching….” Most translators favor the former position, in which case it is implied that there was a time (“still”) when Paul actually advocated circumcision. To “preach circumcision” is of course to advocate that circumcision is necessary in order for one to be accepted by God (Knox “I preach the need of circumcision”). In order to make it quite clear that Paul no longer was preaching that circumcision was necessary, it may be essential to indicate that this was an accusation brought by some of the Judaizers. The condition may then be translated as “if, as they say, I continue to preach that men must be circumcised.”

The passive expression why am I still being persecuted? may be made active by translating “why do people still persecute me?” or “… cause me harm?”

As in other contexts, my brothers may be understood as “you, my fellow believers,” or “you who also believe in Christ.”

It may be necessary in some languages to relate the phrase as for me somewhat more closely to what follows, for example, “now consider my situation. Why am I still persecuted…?”

The rhetorical question denies the charge contained in the conditional clause. What the whole sentence means is that if it were really true that Paul was still preaching the necessity of circumcision, he would not be persecuted; or, to state it another way, since Paul is still being persecuted, then it is not true that he continues to preach that circumcision is necessary. If one adopts the interpretation that the condition is purely hypothetical and so contrary to fact, it may be necessary to translate it as “if I were continuing to preach that men must be circumcised—but, of course, I am not preaching that—then….”

The condition if that were true must refer not to circumcision being true, but to the preaching concerning the necessity of circumcision. Therefore, if that were true may be rendered as “if I were really doing that,” or “if I really were preaching that.”

A further consequence of Paul’s alleged continuing advocacy of circumcision would be that his preaching about the cross of Christ would cause no trouble. The expression would cause no trouble translates two words, a noun which is traditionally rendered “stumblingblock” and a verb which means “to cease” or “to pass away” (the same verb as in 5.4). The stumblingblock of the cross is that element in the death of Christ that would lead the Jews to oppose the whole event and hinder them from accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This is expressed in various ways (for example, Phillips “the hostility which the preaching of the cross provokes”; Jerusalem Bible “scandal”). Paul does not say explicitly what this stumblingblock is, but it is clearly implied that it is his interpretation of Christ’s death as making it possible for anyone to be accepted by God on simple trust, and not by doing what the Law requires.

What Paul is saying here is that if it were true that he is still advocating circumcision, then his preaching about the death of Christ on the cross would no longer cause any trouble for the Jew. But, since his preaching is still causing trouble, it is not true that he continues to advocate circumcision.

Preaching about the cross of Christ may require some minor amplification in order to indicate that Paul was not merely talking about the cross as an object but about the cross as an instrument of Christ’s death or a symbol of his death, for example, “preaching about Christ’s dying upon the cross,” or “preaching about the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross.”

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 truth of the gospel refers to the truth either (1) contained in or belonging to the gospel or (2) consisting of the gospel (an appositional relation). The gospel here is either good news about Jesus Christ or the good news which Christ has brought. In some languages the truth of the gospel may be expressed as “the true words of the good news.” In other instances it may be necessary to say “the good news which is true.” Obviously, the phrase the truth of the gospel should not be translated in such a way as to indicate that the gospel contained both truth and falsehood and that only the truth was to be kept safe.

To keep … safe for you is literally “may abide with you.” Some translations take this to mean “continue” (New English Bible “should be maintained for you”; compare New American Bible “might survive intact for your benefit”). To keep the truth of the gospel safe for you may be rendered as “to keep the truth of the good news without being distorted,” “… without being changed,” or “… without being made false.”

We did not give in means that Paul did not give in to the pressure or demand for Titus’ circumcision. We did not give in to them may be rendered in some languages simply as “We did not agree with their demands,” or “We did not say yes to what they said we must do.”

For a minute translates a Greek phrase (literally “for an hour”) which is used to designate a relatively short time (New English Bible “for one moment”). The phrase for a minute, combined with a negative of the same sentence, may be expressed more satisfactorily in some languages as “never,” for example, “We never gave in to them.”

With a negative statement such as we did not give in to them, it may be necessary to express the purpose in order to keep the truth of the gospel safe for you as a matter of intent or reason for not having given in, for example, “We did not give in to them for a minute, for we wanted to keep the truth of the gospel safe for you.”

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 ask (literally “tell me”) signals the change in tone from the preceding section. It is still direct, but now it is less affectionate and more formal. The abruptness of the expression shows that the idea that Paul is about to present had just occurred to him. Let me ask should not be interpreted as requesting permission; rather it is equivalent to “I want to ask a question of those…,” or “I want to pose a question to those of you….”

Paul is probably not addressing all his readers but only those who want to be subject to the Law. This statement suggests that not all the Galatians have succumbed to the false teachers, but that many have shown by their actions that they desire to be under the Law and are about to adopt the principles and practices which the Law provides. The phrase subject to the Law is literally “under law” and clearly means being obliged to do what the Law requires in order to win God’s approval. In the Greek, “law” does not have an article, and accordingly it is suggested by some commentaries that it means law in general rather than the Jewish Law. It is clear, however, that Paul had in mind the Jewish Law, as this was what the false teachers were presenting to the Galatians. Who want to be subject to the Law may often be rendered simply as “who want to be under obligation to obey what the Law says,” or “who want to be controlled by what the Law says.” Note, however, that in this passage as well as in a great many others, it may be necessary to specify that this is “the Law of Moses,” “the laws of Moses,” or “the laws given by means of Moses.”

In the question do you not hear what the Law says?, some commentaries see a touch of irony: “you want so much to be subject to the Law, so why don’t you listen more carefully to what the Law says?” This is reflected in some translations (Jerusalem Bible “you want to be subject to the Law? Then listen to what the Law says”; New English Bible “tell me … will you not listen to what the Law says?”). Others, however, see no irony but an earnest and sincere desire on the part of Paul to reach his readers and even the false teachers who honestly believe that to obey the Law is to follow God’s will. Do you not hear what the Law says? may be equivalent to “do you really understand what the Law says?” or “… what the laws really mean?” In this particular context hear should be understood in the sense of full comprehension or realization of what is involved. For a language which could not employ a rhetorical question at this point, a strong negative statement may be used, for example, “you do not really understand what the Law is saying.”

Law here is specifically the Law, and would refer either to the whole Old Testament, or to the first five books, known as the Torah or the Pentateuch. The suggestion made by some scholars that this question has reference only to the public reading of scripture is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

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 .