I have decided to choose Gal 5:16-26 for my 5-6 page exegetical assignment in Paul and the Law because at first glance I really have no idea where it will fit into the whole OPP/NPP debate. I thought it would be best to do my own translation to get me going, so this is my first attempt at a mostly literal translation (and I’m not focusing too much on the individual words in the lists under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit” right now). I may try a more smooth one later. The Greek text is from the NA27. You can read little notes to myself if you hover over the dotted lined words.
Galatians 5
16 Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε.
| But I say, walk by the spirit and you shall never gratify the craving of the flesh! |
17 ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός,
| For the flesh craves against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, |
ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε.
| for these are in opposition to one another, lest those things that you might desire, these things you actually do. |
18 εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον.
| But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. |
19 φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια,
| The works of the flesh are obvious, they are: fornication, impurity, self-abandonment, |
20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις,
| idolatry, sorcery, hatred, discord, envy, rage, selfish ambition, disunity, factions, |
21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις,
| jealousy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, |
ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν.
| [of] which I am warning you, as I said before, that those who do such things will not [inherit? obtain? acquire?] the kingdom of God. |
22 ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη χαρὰ εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις
| But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, compassion, fidelity, |
23 πραΰτης ἐγκράτεια· κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος.
| gentleness, self-control; against these things there is no law. |
24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις.
| But those [who are] of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh along with [its] desires and cravings. |
25 Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.
| If we live by the spirit, let us also conform to the spirit. |
26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες.
| Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. |
Initial Observations and Questions
- What most impressed me in translating this passage was just how much the passage concerns itself with how to handle interpersonal conflict. In the past, I never thought much about the list of words under “works of the flesh” and “fruit of the spirit.” Instead, they were just a bunch of bad words and good words, respectively. But the majority of both lists have something to do with how one interacts with and respects other persons (as opposed to the ones about sexual morality, etc.). Verse 26 comes back to that theme. It seems like this emphasis fits into the more sociological perspective of the NPP. But I know that the OPP wouldn’t deny the need for these things.
- What is Paul saying here? Is he saying that following the law is akin to the “works of the flesh”? Is he saying that if you follow the law, then you inadvertently fall into the “works of the flesh”? Is focusing on following the law placing your focus on what you do, rather than living by the spirit?
<
/li> - Just prior to this passage, Paul says that the “whole law” is summed up in the single commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. But they should take care not to bite and devour one another. He’s referring to conflict. Who is the conflict between? Is it between those who would follow the “Judaizers” (the circumcision crowd) and those who would follow Paul (the uncircumcision crowd)? That’s what is suggested by 5:6 and 6:15, circumcision and uncircumcision don’t mean anything, but “faith working through love” and a “new creation.” These lists seem to be giving some practical reflection on what those phrases mean.
- If we look at if from a NPP angle, Paul is criticizing the schism between the two factions and preaching a new way of being, a way of including one another and serving one another. If we look at it from an OPP angle, Paul is saying that living by the spirit is so much better than living under the law.
- I’m definitely going to have to take a closer look into verse 21, but verses 18 and 23 will need some sustained reflection as well. At first glance it would seem to me that “under” the law (v. 18) is referring back to the law being the παιδαγωγὸς (3:24-25), but I will have to think through the implications of that.
That’s all for my initial thoughts. Now, I’m going to dive into some more lexicons, the relevant commentaries, and look for appropriate articles. Feel free to critique, correct, or question anything thing I have here. Also, if anyone has thoughts about how to make the Greek font look nicer, please let me know.
I don’t have the slightest idea about improving the look of the Gk font…plus, it looks fine to me!
I look forward to reading your ideas on the subject that you put down in your paper!
Another thought…must one equate the works of the flesh with being “under the law,” as if following the Mosaic Law leads to the horrible things classified as words of the flesh? Instead, I think that it could be argued that being led by the Spirit is a sign that one is not under the Law, i.e., its jurisdiction (18). I think this is highlighted by the fact that against the fruit of the Spirit there is no Law (23). Thus, the works of the flesh are a sign that one is still subject to the Law’s jurisdiction. This is not to say that following the Law leads naturally to the works of the flesh, but that the works of the flesh are a sign that the Law still holds one under its juridical sway. A slight but important distinction.
Thanks, Matt. That’s kind of what I was going for with my questions in the second bullet point there. It’s nice to see someone else is thinking along the same lines. It’s still confusing though. And I’m still not sure how this passage might play out in the OPP/NPP debate. We shall see. I’m reading Dunn’s commentary on Galatians right now.
Also, I’m glad that the Greek was readable on your platform. Good confirmation.
I haven’t read the post yet. I will, but I first must know how you got the Greek fonts on your post and how you got the “notes to self” links. I have been thinking of doing something similar for Ephesians. I just have no idea how to do it. A how-to post maybe in the future?
Yeah, a how-to post would be terrific!
Sounds like a good idea, guys. Not that I’m an expert or anything, but I’ll get on that.