1:1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul's negation statement is probably modelled on comments like Amos 7:14-15 ("I am no prophet...the Lord took me")rather than being some sort of response to opponents who questioned his apostolic status.

6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The appeal to emotion is a standard rhetorical device of the day as found in rhetorical handbooks like Quintilian's. This was a way of preparing the audience to make a decision about their future course. The verb used ("removed") is in present tense, indicating that the Galatians have not yet defected from the gospel message but are in the process of doing so as Paul writes.

10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

Certain critics have a tendency to try to psychologize Paul here; eg, claiming he was struggling with guilt or self-doubt in his inability to keep the law, and that this helped effect his conversion. It is a grave error to use this sort of psychology on someone like Paul, who would have lacked the introspective conscience of the modern Westerner. There is in fact no reason to doubt his own claim that he was blameless as far as the law was concerned (Phil. 3:6).

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

That Paul says "in me" rather than "to me" is not an indication of Gnosticism. Witherington (106f) notes that this must be read in light of the lack of a ancient category distinction between objective and subjective revelations. A revelation was both objective (because it came from God) and subjective (because it was deeply personal). When Paul says the Son was revealed "in" him it means no more than that it was a personal revelation which no one else was privy to -- and this praxis existed in the OT as well with the prophets. It is not a concept that is "Gnostic property".

18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24And they glorified God in me.

Paul's oath (v. 20) is sometimes pointed to by critics who, with a modern mindset, claim it indicates that Paul is covering something up. The fact is that such oaths were used by ancient Greeks and Romans as a way of showing that they were willing to have their claims tested and scrutinized.

For detailed reconciliation of Galatians with Acts, see http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/actspaul.html

2:1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

If 2:6 is true, how could God choose the Jews? Part of the clue is in knowing what it is the Jews were "chosen" for; in that respect, see Glenn Miller's item at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/choosejews.html . That said, note as well the reasons for God's choice is Deut. 7:8: "But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt." The reason, then, that the one people were chosen was because of the acts of obedience of their forefathers. "Respect of persons" has nothing to do with covenantal agreements, or even judgment based on merit, but with judgments based on our own suppositions and deductions. (The Hebrew in Deut. 10:17 for "persons" likewise means "countenance" or "face".) In other words, it means God does not take people at "face value" but searches them out. There is no relevance to the matter of the choice of Jews for service; they were chosen because their forefathers, and they, were obedient.

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) 9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Numerous commentators, beginning with F. C. Baur in centuries past, understood this event to be the core of an ultimate division between Gentile/Pauline and Jewish/Petrine Christianity, and from there hypothesize all manner of ideas about the evolution of Christianity into a Pauline mutation of salvation by grace through a divine Christ, versus a salvation by works in which Christ was only a nice teacher and not divine. Some even call this the event that founded modern Christianity.

The conflict between Peter and Paul in such cases is seriously overblown, and is not germane to any supposed split between two types of Christianity. It is now time to consider this passage in more detail, and to begin, we must consider some background data. The true core of the P vs P conflict lies in the ancient conception of ritual purity. For this we will repeat some essential points from a general essay on the subject:

In ancient societies, purity codes "are a way of talking about what is proper for a certain place and a certain time...Pollution is a label attached to whatever is out of place with regard to the society's view of an orderly and safe world." It involves "drawing the lines that give definition to the world around us..." More than this: Purity in the ancient world "is fundamentally concerned with the ordering of the world and making sense of one's everyday experiences in light of that order, which is usually conceived as being a divine ordering of the cosmos..." Ancient cultures like Israel's "draw extensive lines of purity, of clean and unclean, in an attempt to create a model of God's cosmic order and to help an individual locate his or her place in that order so that the person may know when pollution has been contracted and what needs to be done to dispel it, so that access to the holy God and his benefits will remain open." Breaches of boundaries are "unclean". Hence the person partially leprous is ritually unclean; but the person who is totally covered with leprosy is ritually clean. Breaks in the skin or discharges likewise violate boundaries and are ritually unclean. From the Israelites food laws, something like a lobster which lives in the water, yet has legs, is ritually unclean because it breaks the boundaries between land and sea.

Ancient peoples drew what DeSilva [Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity] calls "purity maps" in which there was a certain understanding of what belonged where, and what did not. The forbidding of Gentiles into the inner court of the Temple is just such an example, of "unauthorized people trespassing into sacred spaces."[251] Some religious movements follow similar lines of thought today, but for the ancients, this was a way of life inside and outside the religious sphere -- though life and religion were also far more interrelated for the ancients as well. Thus DeSilva notes that in the pagan world, for example, "(e)ntrance to sacred shrines required that the visitor obey the purification requirements specific to the shrine." These might vary from one cult to the next and could include abstinence, washing of the body, or wearing of certain clothes or a certain style of hair. In reverse, a mixing of the pure with the impure was "expected to bring disaster for the perpetrators and possibly even their race." [255] Crossing boundaries offended the powers that were.

Of specific concern to us is that in early Judaism, "deeply engraved" [258] purity maps were drawn distinguishing Israelites from non-Israelites (as well as kosher from non-kosher, and sacred times from non-sacred times). In the time of the NT, Jews were accustomed to thinking of Gentiles as beyond the borders of their purity map; the Zealots went as far as using military action to enforce the boundaries. This was far from politically correct, but it was the norm of thinking for the day. In turn, purity maps served a group-identity function, clearly distinguishing one group from another in ways that reinforced the group's internal values. The maps were drawn, and kept, with serious intent.

Christianity involved a serious "redrawing" of the purity maps of Judaism. Those who might think that Paul started the fight don't realize that the battle began in the Gospels. Jesus' association with lepers (regarded as perpetually unclean), the dead (Jairus' daughter and the son of the widow of Nain), the demon possessed (ritually unclean), tax collectors, and sinners (morally unclean), and his statement that "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man," and his denial of the sacred space of the Temple (John 4 and predictions of the Temple's destruction), involve radical redrawings of the Jewish purity maps, parallel to that which Paul advocated in Galatians 2, but which make Paul's angst shrink in comparison.

And now a key point from deSilva: "The Gospels...present Jesus encountering a stream of ritually impure and potentially polluting people, but in the encounter their contagion does not defile Jesus; rather his holiness purges their pollutions, renders them clean and integrates them again into the mainstream of Jewish society where they can reclaim their birthright, as it were, among the people of God...A critical extension of the principle that God's holiness in Jesus was cleansing and sanctifying the unclean is the early church's discovery that Gentiles could be brought into the people of God without first taking on the marks of the ethnic Jew." [284-5] Let us now understand how this applies to the situation of Galatians 2.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.(2:11-12)

The issue of ritual purity is now clear here. Note that Peter is said to have previously eaten with Gentiles. What has now happened is perhaps that "certain [men] from James" witnessed this "violation" of a purity taboo, this crossing by Peter of a boundary separating the holy from the unholy. (Alternatively, the men from James may not have said anything at all, and Peter may have presumed of his own accord that he should change his behavior -- the fact that Paul does not condemn these men, or James, tells us as much.)

But doesn't this signify two differing ideologies? Not at all, as we shall see; it signifies a problem of social boundaries, which was connected to religion, but that was not the primary issue. It is worth noting that this corresponds with the story in Acts 10 of Peter associating with Cornelius. Peter already had been associating with Gentiles in ways that were taboo according to the purity map of Judaism, and had been criticized for it in the past (Acts 10:24-11:18). Note as well that this has nothing to do with matters of faith vs. works or the identity of Christ, as it stands. All that is at issue so far is purity mapping; hence as well it is pointed out by Paul that the Jerusalem church did not demand earlier that Titus be circumcised and thereby placed within the bounds of the purity map.

We will discuss more of why the Jerusalem church was so "into" the old purity map in a moment, but for now, it may be noted, as may be expected, that there could easily be extremists who bolstered their position by claiming that salvation was at stake (Acts 15:1, Gal. 2:4). Witherington [Galatians commentary, 152] notes:

One can understand why Torah-observant Jewish Christians would be especially critical of Peter for this sort of behavior. The Jerusalem church had recognized that God had set him apart for missionary work among Jews, and here he was fraternizing with Gentiles over meals which would cause many of those in his target audience to raise questions about his Jewishness. From the point of view of the Jerusalem church, Peter was being a bad witness, and acting in conflict with the character of his calling.

This agrees with a resolution to a related issue: Is Paul In Galatians 2 contradicting his own advice to "become as a Jew" in 1 Corinthians? No -- Paul is speaking in a missionary context of himself; against Peter he is referring to a gathering of the brethren. There was no need for Peter to "become as a Jew" in Antioch, because he was not acting as a missionary and changing his behavior for the sake of clear communication and understanding, but acting as one who was trying to ingratiate himself with others to avoid consequences. What consequences? Witherington [155] argues that the consequences were associations with Gentiles that would cause reprisals among Zealots who would consider the less nomistic Jewish Christians to be traitors, just as extremist Muslims today would regard more moderate Muslims as perhaps infidels. The Jerusalem church, in order not to be persecuted into the ground, maintained certain Jewish practices for the sake of not being bad neighbors, as Paul would not be when he became as a Jew for the Jews, or what have you. Hence as well in Gal. 6:12 Paul regards avoiding persecution as the motive of the "false brethren." (See more on this in our review of Nanos' Irony of Galatians -- this is another aspect of the Baur paradigm that needs overturning.)

It should be pointed out that it is most likely that Paul was not in Antioch at the time the "men from James" came to town (that is, even if they were the direct motivators), and that these men were not around when Paul confronted Peter, and were not themselves the false brothers. Otherwise, it is likely that he would have known the names of these men (though keeping them anonymous may be a shaming device), and also confronted them in the assembly, and said or done something before others were led astray. Much of what is described clearly happened while Paul was in absentia. In addition, we see also the reason why Paul has spent as much time as he has in Gal. 1-2 defending his apostleship. To confront Peter was a bold maneuver that would have led Peter to lose face if he did not respond to the challenge, unless Paul was indeed Peter's inferior, and could thereby ignore the challenge. As Malina notes in The New Testament World (39), "only equals can play" this game, and only those recognized as equals can play it. If Peter were Paul's superior, he had the power to ignore and even punish Paul for his impudence. (Paul could also do this if he was Peter's superior, but no one argues for that!) Paul's recounting of his credentials and recognition by the Jerusalem church are not an ego trip, but within the context of an ancient honor-shame society (NOT what we have today!) established his right to confront Peter on equal terms, and established the need for Peter to answer the challenge.

Finally, Paul's word for Peter's method ("withdrew") is a military or tactical term describing a retreat to an inconspicuous sheltered position [Witherington, 154]. If this were as much an issue as the critics suggest, surely Peter's "retreat" would have been much bolder and more defiant.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.(2:13)

What has happened now is that Peter, the de facto leader of this group, has similarly drawn away others. Under the ancient focus on shame and honor, it became, once Peter stepped back over the line, dishonorable not to follow. Peter and Co. were literally shamed by the group from James (either directly, or by their presence and the assumption of what was expected) into returning to the old purity map, and Peter's actions in turn shamed others into following (including Barnabas, a Levite who would be very sensitive to the apparent need to appear more "law-abiding"). Here again a specific word is important: "dissimulation" means play-acting, or a charade, believing one thing while doing another. The implication again is that Peter, etc. are being inconsistent with their own known position. Indeed, in this light, Paul essentially regards Peter and Barnabas as victims or as careless, not as primarily culpable!

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?(2:14)

Paul's accusation, that Peter and the others did not walk according to the truth of the Gospel, is correct in line with Jesus' own behavior in consistently and defiantly crossing ritual purity lines. Note once again that Paul also notes that Peter "livest after the manner of Gentiles," thus agreeing again with Acts 10-11 that Peter had had previous realization that the purity lines had been redrawn in Christ. (This may also be why Paul does not go after James, even if James and his men were direct motivators: James had never done as Peter did and started living like a Gentile! It is not Torah observation that Paul is against, but inconsistency and hypocrisy! Thus also, perhaps, why the men from James are not attacked, even if they were instigators -- they were not being hypocrites!)

We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It is this verse above all which leads critics to conclude that here we have a split between faith vs. works, and behind it, Christ as divine vs. Christ as normal guy. But the matter is far simpler. In light of the purity maps, Paul is now making the point that the previous criteria for being within the bounds of the purity map are now gone; the bounds have been redrawn by Christ, and therefore, to behave as Peter did is in effect to deny that "God's order had been breached in the cross of Jesus." Faith and works as Christian ways are not in the least at issue here, much less the identity of Christ. What is at issue is purity, and the criteria by which others are deemed pure. The implication of the Galatians influencers (see Nanos review linked above) was that purity and membership in God's kingdom was not achieved except by following the old map -- which is why Paul does go on to stress that if that is so, then logically, one must also follow the entire map (5:3), not just part of it.

The implication was that Christ had not purified the Gentiles and redrawn the map, and in turn, implied that Christ's atoning death was ineffectual. Note that there is no indication at all that Peter "worked it through" and would have denied Christ's atoning death (though by Nanos' view, the influencers never were concerned with it in the first place). If that had happened, not sitting with Gentiles would have been the least of things to worry about. Paul's message to Peter was, "If you do A, then B -- do you realize that?" The influencers were concerned with the surface matter of ingroup signs of membership, and in Jerusalem, probably the pressure of persecution, and a missionary effort, to Jews still under the law -- not with the deeper implications of what they were demanding. At the same time, the idea of the body of Christ having separate members was itself a form of defilement, of separating that which was whole! It really was case of someone "robbing Paul to pay Peter"!

Indications are, from Acts and the rest of the NT, that some in Jerusalem did realize the implications of what they demanded, and the result of that is the conference of Acts 15. (It should be noted that the understanding of Gal. 2 is very much interlinked with how it is placed in terms of a chronology with Acts. As we note here, the timing is much better suited if we place Galatians early, and Galatians 2 between Acts 11 and 15. Placing Gal. 2 after Acts 15 is a keystone in any thesis wishing to emphasize the "fight" between Peter and Paul.) Jesus' denial in John 4 that the Temple at Jerusalem was not the sacred space, but that personal worship was the way to go, is echoed in Paul's reference to the body as sacred space (1 Cor. 3:16-17) which could be polluted, and in Peter and John's recognition that the believer had been made holy in Christ (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:2-3) and who should abstain from polluting behavior (as is clear in all the writings of the NT, including Paul's). Paul in later letters apparently has no problem in relating to the Jerusalem church, as he takes up a collection for them (1 Cor. 9:5-6, 2 Cor. 8-9, Rom. 15:22ff, Col. 4:10 -- critics are reduced to suggesting, as Hyam Maccoby does, that this collection was intended as a bribe to the Jerusalem church to accept Paul, or a way of him buying Roman citizenship, which does no more than change the thesis in light of the facts). Of course this is not to say that some in Jerusalem did not stick by their guns; indeed, we would expect that some would try to strengthen their view by making salvation dependent on nomism, and we may well see the roots of the Ebionite movement in such persons. But it is clear that they were the ultimate losers in the debate, that James was not even by Paul's reckoning guilty of following them, and clear as well that to see such an enormous rift and upon so many issues as the critics suppose is a wish fathering a thought.

17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Is there an incongruity in Paul saying that no good thing "dwells" in him, though he has Christ in him? No -- the objection fails to distinguish between the Greek words involved. The Galatians word is, according to Strong's:

2198. zao, dzah'-o; a prim. verb; to live (lit. or fig.):--life (-time), (a-) live (-ly), quick.

...which connotes influence or substance. ("Man does not live (zao) by bread alone.").

3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul now proceeds to another standard method of deliberative (requesting a decision) rhetoric, in which he appeals to a prior example, that of Abraham, whose example is one to be followed. The "bewitched" is literally the evil eye, which Paul likely uses metaphorically in a way that will still move the Galatians, who as former pagans would recognize the metaphor. The questions of 3:2-5 are rhetorical and even sarcastic.

6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

Paul is here against specific works of the law as a path to salvation; he is not preaching a gospel free of ethics or law in a moral, general sense (cf. Gal. 5-6). V. 10 is another standard rhetorical move: appeal to potential negative consequences. It is not a misuse of Deuteronomy, because the obvious implication of the OT is that no one was ever able to keep the law perfectly, and so it has a natural disadvantage of invoking its own "curse" on those who sign on to it. The illustration is comparative to living under Christ. V. 12 may be compared to children who do not understand the rationale for boundaries and live them out, as it were, with a sort of resentment; whereas a mature person can live by lotyalty and faith, having come to understand the purposes of the law and its boundaries for their own good.

Exegetes at Qumran, even as Paul here, had connected the verse in Deuteronomy about "hanging on a tree" to crucifixion.

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Is this in contradiction with Gen. 15:13, which says 400 years? No, because Exodus gives the number of years that the people lived in Egypt; Genesis gives the number of years they would be enslaved and mistreated -- the enslavement/mistreatment did not start right away! he promises were made to Abraham and his seed. The last statement of promise recorded was to Jacob (Gen. 28:15), and that is where the 430 years dates from.

Isn't Paul really stretching to make "seed" singular here? Witherington (commentary on Galatians, 244-5) notes that the charge of legerdemain is overblown and still anachronistic. Furthermore:

• It "fails to note that the promise as given to Abraham referred initially to a particular individual, Isaac, and then to Abraham's more remote descendants," so that "'a rhetorical play on the ambiguity is invited.'"
• It misses that Paul clearly knows that "seed" is a collective noun, as he uses it as such in 3:29 to refer to believers. This shows that he knows the word was "a collective noun which was also in the first instance used of an individual."
• The Book of Jubilees 16:17 offers some evidence that Jewish interpreters "had already referred 'seed' in the promise of Abraham to a particular person":

  And (that) all the seed of his sons should be Gentiles, and be reckoned with the Gentiles; but from the sons of Isaac one should become a holy seed, and should not be reckoned among the Gentiles.

• Finally, it should be remembered that Paul, as a collectivist, considers the exalted Christ to be an "inclusive personality" within which is the collective body of Christ. Thus it is possible for Paul to play upon the rhetorical ambiguity in the word "seed".
  

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The word for "angels" means messengers and this is in line with the NT-era Jewish understanding of Wisdom as a messenger through whom the transcendent God's commands were delivered. Moreover, contemporary Jewish tradition regarded angels as having a "positive role in the giving of the Law (cf. Deut. 32:2 LXX; Ps. 67:18 LXX; Jub. 1:27-29...)" [Witherington, Galatians commentary, 257] and the rabbis also spoke of angels descending at the time the law was given (Pesiq R 21).

The law here is compared to a pedagogue, or a guardian of a child, whose job was to make the child aware of the consequences of their actions and instruct them in morals.

20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

"Elements" refers to the principles and teachings of the world, as also found in the works of the Greek moralists like Plato and Aristotle. "Made of a woman" is a phrase indicating normal birth (cf. Job 14:1, Josephus Ant. 7:21, Matt. 11:11/Luke 7:28).

8Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

12Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. 13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. 14And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 15Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. 16Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

A reminder of prior intimacy is another valid rhetorical tactic of the day, as is Paul appealing to himself as an example. This is not egotism at work (such an idea is unknown to a dyadic person) but Paul assuming the normal and expected role of a leader. The prior relationship establishes Paul's ethical standing with the Galatians and emphasizes his reliability over and against his opponents.

Paul seems to have had some disease or afflication with visible manifestations; such people were considered bad luck and often were rejected with spitting or insults. It may have had to do with Paul's eyes. In any event it is a reminder of the good relationship he shared with the Galatians in the past.

17They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. 18But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you. 19My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, 20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

21Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

This isn't saying that Abe had only two kids (versus 8 in Genesis) -- it's just picking two out of the lot (the two most important for the context) and using them as examples. Only our modern obssesion with details requires the added thought, "He had six others by another women, but that doesn't come into this story."

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Critics read too much into Paul's description of this as "allegory," supposing even that he regarded Abraham, et al as non-historical. The word used simply means a form of speaking "which presents one thing in words and another in meaning, or else something absolutely opposed to the meaning of the words." [322] Historicity is not the subject or concern of this technique.

5:1Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 7Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Paul now, as a proper rhetor should, embarks upon a defense against a potential objection that his views result in libertine behavior. This does not mean he was actually accused on this point by opponents.

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

The purpose of this section is to encourage Paul's readers to continue on their path of freedom from pagan vices and discourage them from taking a step backwards by Judaizing. Paul draws on discussions that would be familiar to his readers from pagan moralists, in particular Aristotle, from whom the words "against which there is no law" are probably drawn.

6:1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5For every man shall bear his own burden.

6:2 refers to excessive burdens that we share with one another; 6:5 refers to the normal amount of care that each of us can carry on our own. It is not reflected by the KJV, but the Greek word translated "burden" in 6:2 (baros) is different from the one in 6:5 (phortion).

6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

11Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. 12As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. 17From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. 18Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Nanos argues in Irony of Galatians that the Judaizers seek the honor of bringing the Galatians into the fold through the circumcision ritual. The phrase commonly taken to mean that the influencers are Jewish Christians -- "only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ" -- should be understood as meaning that the influencers are pressing for circumcision, lest they be accused of agreeing with the Christian contention that it is unnecessary, and also thereby be accused of being Christians (and thereby having to endure the persecution that goes with the title). V. 17 alludes perhaps to the idea that, like Cain's mark, the marks of Christ should warn people against causing trouble for Paul.

Source commentary: Witherington's Grace in Galatia