The relation of this verse to what precedes cannot easily be seen. Some have assumed a connection because of the Greek connective (“and” or “but”) which begins the sentence. This particular connective, however, is sometimes used to start a new section, and its presence here is not necessarily significant. Furthermore, the subject matter of the verse is entirely new and does not seem to be connected either with what immediately precedes or with the theme of the entire epistle. In view of this, some take this verse as the beginning of a new section (verses 6-10), consisting of unrelated general exhortations.

At any rate, this verse speaks of the relationship between “the one who is being taught the word” and “the one who is teaching.” The “word” in this context clearly refers to the whole Christian message, and the man being taught is one who is “under Christian instruction” (Phillips, compare New English Bible “under instruction in the faith”), that is, a catechumen.

Paul describes the relationship between catechumen and teacher as a partnership (the word he uses means “share” or “be a partner in”). But what does it mean to be partners “in all good things”? Does “good things” refer to spiritual matters? In other words, is Paul saying that the disciple must be receptive to everything that the teacher is imparting? Or does “good things” refer to material goods? That is, is Paul admonishing the disciple to make a financial contribution toward the support of the teacher? The latter interpretation seems to be more probable, and so it is made clear in some translations (Jerusalem Bible “People under instruction should always contribute something to the support of the man who is instructing them”; compare Phillips).

Some suggest that Paul is being intentionally ambiguous here, for he wants both material and spiritual aspects included in the partnership between disciple and teacher. Retention of the Greek form (as in Good News Translation, New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Moffatt et cetera) would, of course, preserve this ambiguity.

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 .

How can you be so foolish expresses unbelief on the part of Paul. He finds it difficult to believe that the Galatians can be that foolish (compare Phillips “Surely you can’t be so idiotic”; New English Bible “Can it be that you are so stupid?”). In place of an exclamatory question How can you be so foolish!, it may be necessary in some languages to use a strong negative expression, for example, “You surely cannot be so foolish!” or, idiomatically, “Certainly your minds must not have left you so completely!”

You began by God’s Spirit; do you now want to finish by your own power? is literally “Having begun with (in, by) the Spirit, with (in, by) the flesh are you now finishing?” Here Paul presents a twofold contrast: beginning/finishing, God’s Spirit/flesh. As in the previous verse, “Spirit” here again refers to the Spirit of God. “Flesh” could be interpreted in many ways. It could mean the “body,” that is, a reference to what is circumcised. Or it could refer to the natural powers of men apart from the divine Spirit, hence the Good News Translation rendering by your own power. Again, “flesh” could refer to outward observances such as the Jewish rite of circumcision and other requirements of the Law (Jerusalem Bible “Are you foolish enough to end in outward observances what you began in the Spirit?”; Phillips “reverting to outward observances”; but see New English Bible, where the antithesis is between the “material” and the “spiritual”: “You started with the spiritual; do you now look to the material…?”).

One of the serious complications involved in this contrast between God’s Spirit and a person’s own power is the fact that the verb began occurs without any verbal complement. In a number of languages one simply cannot use a verb such as began without indicating what began. In some languages one can say “You began your new life by means of God’s Spirit,” or “God’s Spirit caused you to begin to live in a new way.” It is also possible to speak of “your new relation to God.”

In place of the question do you now want to finish by your own power?, one may employ a statement for languages which would not use a rhetorical question. One may say, for example, “you certainly do not want to complete your life by just what you can do for yourself.” However, one may wish to restructure the relations rather extensively, for example, “how do you think that you are strong enough to complete the life that you have begun?”, or “how do you think that you can continue living to the end by your own strength?”

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 Paul reminds the Galatians of their former state, to prepare them for the warning he is about to give regarding the folly of their proposed actions.

In the Greek the verse starts with “but then,” and while most translations omit the connective, it is possible to interpret it to mean that Paul’s description of the former state of the Galatians and of their apostasy is in direct contrast to their description as children of God in the previous section.

In the past may be expressed in some languages as “in former days,” but past time may be characterized specifically in terms of having occurred prior to faith in Jesus Christ, and therefore one may translate “before you believed in Jesus.”

The verb form of you did not know is a perfect (but used as a present) tense to refer to a period of time simultaneous with the main verb (you were slaves) and thus in the past (Good News Translation in the past; New English Bible and others “formerly”). Most interpreters take the position that, since Paul says that in their former state the Galatians were ignorant of God, he had in mind primarily the non-Jews among them, for the Jews would have had a knowledge of God before they became Christians. It is possible, however, to understand the Jews’ subservience to the Law as a form of ignorance of God. In fact, the phrase know God must be understood in this context (as well as in many other contexts in Paul’s letters) as indicating intimate relationship with God. It is far more than merely “knowing about God.” An equivalent expression in some languages may be “you really were not personally acquainted with God,” or “you had never met with God.”

And so implies the reason for Paul’s mentioning the matter of their ignorance of God. Since they were ignorant of God, one could understand why they were in a state of slavery. It is interesting to note that the word translated you were slaves is related to the word Paul uses when he talks of being a “servant” of Jesus Christ. In Christ, of course, this relationship is characterized by freedom, not bondage.

The expression beings who are not gods is literally “the ones which by nature are not gods.” The word for “nature” refers to one’s essential character. While Paul does not deny that these beings are called “gods,” he does deny that they are deities. In other words, they are “gods who are really no gods at all” (Moffatt).

The main difficulty here is to determine what Paul was referring to by this description. Was he referring to the idols which the Galatians formerly served, to the “elements of the world” referred to in verse 3, or to the pagan deities which in another letter he refers to as “demons”? (1 Cor 10.20). Or did he include in this description the Jewish Law which had taken the place of God in Jewish life? It is not easy to choose an answer, but in view of the nature of Paul’s readers, an interpretation that would include both Jews and Greeks would be preferred. The only equivalent of beings who are not gods in some languages is “spirits who are not gods.” This would be a reference to those spirits in the universe which indwell nature but which are not regarded as having supernatural power over certain domains of nature. If, however, one endeavors to include the Jewish Law in beings who are not gods, then it may be necessary to use some relatively impersonal expression such as “powers which are really not gods.” Such a generic expression as “powers” is, however, relatively rare in receptor languages, and therefore one may be forced to settle for an expression such as “spirits.”

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 here quotes a proverbial saying which he uses elsewhere (see 1 Cor 5.6). The amount of yeast is very small in proportion to the total lump of dough, but it is used to make … rise (that is, to ferment or leaven) the whole lump. In the New Testament yeast is used as a symbol of the pervasive influence either of evil or of good (as in Matt 13.33). Paul’s emphasis is on the former. The meaning of the proverb is fairly obvious: evil, no matter how small it seems, will always in the end result in great harm. Paul may be applying the proverb either to the teachers, who obviously were only a handful, or to their teaching, especially to their possible insistence on circumcision as only a small thing.

The action of yeast on a batch of dough is expressed quite differently in various languages, for example, “only a little yeast can make a large batch of dough grow big,” “… can soon sour a great deal of dough,” or “… is needed for a big loaf of bread.”

The expression as they say is not in the Greek text but is legitimately added here to mark the previous statement as a proverb or popular saying. It may be rendered in some languages as “there is a saying that,” “one often hears it said,” or even “people often say.”

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 .

To conclude may be expressed in some languages as “These are my final words,” or “The last I have to say is this.”

In this verse Paul exhorts the Galatians not to give him any more trouble (literally, “henceforth, let no man trouble me”), giving as his reason “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Revised Standard Version). The metaphor probably refers to the practice of branding slaves with the mark or name of their master. To Paul, the “marks of Jesus” are distinguishing marks which show undeniably that he is a slave of Jesus Christ. While it is possible to understand this in a spiritual sense, the better and more probable interpretation is that Paul has in mind the scars, the marks of suffering and affliction, which he carries on his body as a result of his obedience to his Lord.

Let no one give me any more trouble must not be understood as suggesting permission; rather, it is a command that no one should cause Paul any more difficulty. This may be expressed in some languages as “no one must give me any more trouble.” In some languages this must be introduced by a command, for example, “I command that no one give me any more trouble,” or “… cause me to suffer further.”

In some languages the scars I have on my body must be rendered as “the scars on my skin,” “the results of the wounds I have had,” or “my healed wounds.”

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 Greek text starts with a “but” (as in Revised Standard Version, compare New English Bible “yet”; Jerusalem Bible “and what happened?”), indicating that, contrary to his worst fears, Paul’s views prevailed. He cites two incidents to illustrate this: (1) the case of Titus (verses 3-5) and (2) the attitude of the Jerusalem leaders toward himself and his message (verses 6-10).

Titus is already noted in verse 1. He is described as a Greek, a term used here in its broad sense of “Gentile” or non-Jew (see Rom 1.16; 2.9,10). As a non-Jew, Titus had not been circumcised, circumcision being practiced only by the Jews.

My companion Titus may be expressed in some languages as “Titus, who had come with me,” or “Titus, who had accompanied me.”

Even though he is Greek expresses what is referred to as a “concession.” That is to say, one would expect that a Greek would be forced to be circumcised if he was to accompany Jews such as Paul or Barnabas and to associate with Jews, especially in his contacts in Jerusalem. However, contrary to such expectation, he was not required to be circumcised. A concessive clause may involve an additional feature of adversative expression, for example, “My companion Titus was a Greek, but nevertheless he was not forced to be circumcised.” In some languages there may be difficulty involved in the passive expression was … forced to be circumcised, for the causative agent in forced is not specified nor is the causative agent in the passive expression to be circumcised indicated clearly. Such agents may, of course, be indicated, for example, “The leaders of the church did not require that some person circumcise Titus.” Note that obviously there is here a contrast between the requirements made by the church leaders and the insistence of some persons who did want to have Titus circumcised.

The phrase was not forced to be circumcised is in itself ambiguous. Some scholars understand this to mean that Titus was circumcised, but his circumcision was not a result of compulsion (for example, Knox). Most, however, interpret the verb form meaning “was not forced” in a resultative sense: that is, what is denied is not the pressure, but the result. This would mean that Titus was not circumcised at all. Good News Translation makes this clear in verse 4: although some wanted it done, that is, to have him circumcised.

In languages used by people who normally do practice circumcision, there is no difficulty involved in finding a term for the practice which will be acceptable on a so-called formal level of discourse, that is, in language appropriate for a document to be read in church. There are almost always other ways of talking about circumcision, many of which are rather crude or vulgar, and these, of course, must be avoided. For languages spoken by people who have no knowledge of circumcision or who regard it as a wholly inappropriate custom, it may be difficult to find a satisfactory term to designate this kind of religious rite. In most societies in which circumcision is practiced it is actually one of the so-called “rites of passage,” that is to say, rites related to certain important crises in life. Circumcision is frequently associated with puberty and sexual maturity, and it is not religious and ethnic identity as in the case of the Jewish practice performed on male infants eight days of age. In some languages translators have attempted to indicate the meaning of circumcision by translating literally “cutting away the foreskin of the penis,” but this type of expression is often regarded as vulgar and uncouth. As a result, other translators have simply used the expression “ritual cutting,” and still others a somewhat obscure expression such as “cutting around.” It is even possible in some languages to use a phrase such as “a mark of cutting.” What is important is that some expression be employed which will designate this ritual of circumcision in an appropriate way, without introducing connotations which may render the expression inappropriate. If a vague or obscure expression is used, it may be important to have a satisfactory definition or description of circumcision in a glossary.

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 term brothers in this context should be understood as “fellow Christians” or “fellow believers in Christ.”

I am going to use an everyday example is literally “I speak according to man” or “as men do.” The meaning here is simply that Paul is going to talk about something that is of common knowledge to his readers (Jerusalem Bible “compare this with what happens in ordinary life”; New English Bible “let me give you an illustration. Even in ordinary life…”). One may also translate as “I’m going to compare God’s promise with something that happens all the time,” or “What I have been talking about is similar to what you yourselves know about.”

When two people agree on a matter and sign an agreement represents the Greek “a covenant (or, a will) once ratified, though it be man’s….” The differences in various translations stem from the problem of how to translate the term which Good News Translation renders here as “agreement,” since it is the more natural word in this context; but in verse 17 Good News Translation renders the same word as “covenant,” since it is the more natural word in that context. Does this word mean “will” (“testament”) and involve only one man (Revised Standard Version “a man’s will”; Jerusalem Bible “a will”; New English Bible “a man’s will and testament”)? Or does the word get its meaning from the Hebrew concept of “covenant” (“contract”) and accordingly involve two participants (compare Phillips “once a contract has been properly drawn up and signed…”)? The biblical usage of the term and the overall context favor the latter alternative. It is true that in classical Greek, and in some later Jewish writers like Josephus, the term is used in the sense of “will” or “testament.” Furthermore, the use of “inheritance” in verses 18 ff. seems to suggest this meaning. However, these arguments are offset by stronger ones in favor of “covenant.” The biblical usage of the term is in the sense of an agreement between two parties, sometimes between two men or two nations, but in most cases, between God on the one hand and a person, group of persons, or a nation on the other. Furthermore, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for covenant is rendered with the same Greek word here in question. There is little doubt that even in the New Testament, with one or two exceptions, the word used is equivalent to the Hebrew word for “covenant.” Still further, the same word is used in verse 17, and there it clearly means “covenant,” since to translate it “testament” or “will” would imply the death of God before the testament goes into effect! Regarding the argument that wills were irrevocable during those days, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Greek wills could be included in this category. To the argument that Paul’s Gentile readers would understand the term to mean “will” and nothing more, it should be noted that Paul is here arguing against Jewish Christian adversaries, and therefore Paul used terminology which was familiar to them. It is likely that the terminology was also familiar to the Gentile Christians in Galatia because of the raging controversy in which they were involved.

Agree and sign render a Greek legal word which could be translated “ratified” (Revised Standard Version) or whatever is done to an agreement in order to give it legal force (New American Bible “legally validated”; New English Bible “duly executed”; Phillips “properly drawn up and signed”). Expressions such as agree and sign in reference to an agreement, covenant, or contract may be expressed in a number of different ways, some quite idiomatic, for example, “tie themselves together,” “cut an agreement,” “snap fingers together,” “touch one another concerning,” or “eat with one another about.”

No one could be understood either as referring to an outside party (Phillips “can neither be disregarded nor modified by a third party”) or to anyone, including the parties to the agreement. Mutual agreement for either annulment or amendment is, of course, always possible, but is not important to the force of the illustration. In order to emphasize the fact that one person on his own initiative cannot alter such an agreement, one may say “no one alone can break the agreement,” or “no one person just because he wants to can break the agreement.”

Break is to “violate” or “disregard” (Phillips, Jerusalem Bible) or to “set aside” (Knox, New American Bible, New English Bible). The Greek word, however, can also mean “annul” (Revised Standard Version), that is, to declare it legally not binding. To break an agreement or covenant may be expressed in a number of different ways, for example, “to throw an agreement away,” “to forget an agreement,” “to wipe out a covenant,” or “to say that a covenant has become nothing.”

Add anything to it translates a Greek word which is used in the New Testament only here. It means “to make additional prescriptions.” This may be rendered as “add other words to it” or “make more requirements in 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 .