MSB introductory notes on Galatians:
Addressed to the churches, plural, in Galatia.  It is Paul's only letter addressed to multiple churches.  Paul mentions his attendance at the Jerusalem Council in this book, so Galatians must have been written after that..  The Jerusalem Council is often dated in 49 AD. 
Churches included in the Roman province of Galatia include Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.  These were in the Roman province of Galatia, though not in the ethnic section of the province that was Galatia before the Romans arrived.  The ethnic Galatians were mostly Celts who had migrated from France in the 3rd century BC.  There is no record of Paul visiting the Celtic part of Galatia. 
MSB says "Paul wrote Galatians to counter judaizing false teachers who were undermining the central NT doctrine of justification by faith."  These false teachers persisted, ignoring the edict of the Jerusalem Council by continuing to teach that one needed first to convert to Judaism and practice the Mosaic law in order to become Christians. 
Many use a verse or two in Galatians as part of their foundation for believing certain things.  That is, many controversial doctrines that in our day divide one denomination from another find proof texts in this short little book to the Galatians.  Among them
    1. Those who support the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration - the teaching that you must be baptized to be saved, use 3:27 as a supporting verse.
    2. Those who attack traditional Biblical roles of men and women (and so support a more modern, equal view), use 3:28 for support, and to negate the traditional roles of authority and submission.
    3.  Those who do not believe in Calvin's Perseverance of the Saints use 5:4, "You have fallen from grace..."
    4.  Those who argue that Israel and the church are now one use 6:16 for support.
These are all pretty big issues.  Think of the divisions within the church that have resulted because of the passionate disagreement on these four issues!
MSB says the notes on these verses will address the controversies.
Seems to me that this would be the first letter Paul wrote.  James was the oldest book of the NT, and since I am reading in a chronological Bible and this is the first of Paul's letters to be introduced, I think I am on firm ground saying that.  So it would seem a good idea to take the four "controversies" listed above as not being issues at all when Paul first wrote about them, and so to look in later letters to the ones he came back to and addressed as they grew in acceptance or became controversial in the early church.  We today see them as very controversial, but the very fact that they are all mentioned more "in passing" than as huge doctrinal matters implies that they were not issues at the time of this writing.

Chapter 1
First five verses are introduction.  Paul is sending this letter, with other brethren.

2021-2,  Here is the outline of Biblical usage of the word "adelphos", here translated "brothers":
1.              a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother         
2.              having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman         
3.              any fellow or man         
4.              a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection         
5.              an associate in employment or office         
6.              brethren in Christ         
   1.                      his brothers by blood                 
   2.                      all men                 
   3.                      apostles                 
   4.                      Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place              

I get it.  Yet every single time the word is used in the TCR ESV, there is this footnote:  Or "brothers and sisters".  In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated brothers) may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters.  They put this in EVERY TIME.  For who?  Who is this in here to pacify?  Is it a critical point of translation that must be made clear every time it comes up so that there can never be any mistake about what it means?  Is it a point of doctrine?  Is it crucial to relating the true gospel?  When Paul wrote this, did he think "Now I'm gonna use "adelphos" here, instead of writing brothers and sisters all the way out, but I'm sure they will understand that I am writing not just from us guys here in where ever, but also from the women that are here"?  Did he worry about hurt feelings or did he have much bigger matters to deal with .  I despise this "nod" to feminism, not because it is here once, but because it is here so very many times, and is in my opinion irrelevant to the point of the letters, and an addition to the inspired scripture.  Ok.  Enough.  Last time I'm ranting about that.
   
2021 - Perhaps due to the current situation with the apologetics class, and my "inserting myself" into their business, this verse and the footnote with it really jumped out at me:
2 and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: [Gal 1:2 ESV]  This letter is from Paul, and he adds this verse to say it is not from him alone.  Here is the note in Blue Letter Bible:  "Or brothers and sisters. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters; also verse 11."  So.  Depending on context...This is pretty much word for word the note in my TCR ESV version.  So the note is a translation note to the ESV translation.  It is not from Thompson, nor is it from BLB, it is from those who translated it.  The NASB has no such note here.  So, Paul did not put this note in.  If we take the note as relevant, then we need to look at the context of the verse to determine whether it truly did me male brothers only, or it meant the whole church from which Paul was writing.  But...he doesn't name any church.  In fact, he goes to great lengths later in the book to establish his own credentials, and not the credentials of anyone else who is with him, of whatever sex.  So the obvious way to read this is that the greeting is from Paul and many others - it is a communication from one one group to another group.  In that sense, brothers and sisters as the correct translation  does make sense.  But in vs 6, when the book really starts, it does NOT say WE are astonished, it says I.  So that sets the greeting off even more.  

In verse 6 Paul gets right to the point:  "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you...".  These churches have been deceived by false teachers almost immediately.  The judaizers seem almost to be a well-oiled machine in their efforts to undermine the gospel in these areas.  Indeed they may have been.  They had synagogues, hierarchy, and committed "soldiers".  He goes on to say that what they are being taught is not "another gospel" but a distortion.  He is telling them this teaching they have adopted will not be efficacious to salvation.  It isn't a "modification" or an "accommodation" only, but is a distortion to the point of "hiding" salvation from those who are seeking it.  Paul says those who are teaching this distortion are to be accursed.  Paul wants them to go back to what they heard at the first - the original teaching from him as he came through there establishing churches, and stick with that - unmodified, unchanged, un-interpreted, un-amplified.  The teachings of another group, another culture, and by extension civil government, are NOT to be superimposed on the original teaching of the gospel.  The closer to the original intent you can get, the more accurately you will understand the apostolic teaching about the gospel.  That is what he is saying.  Do not add to the original.

Paul now turns to his credentials, to his own credibility, as the true teacher contrasted with these judaizers who seek to please men but not God.  It is likely that the judaizers had tried to undermine Paul's teaching by  undermining his credibility.  Paul is about to say he has authority as an apostle - as the original 11 then 12.  His teaching is not based just on his studying the word, but on truth revealed directly to him by Jesus Christ.

2021-2, this verse:
[Gal 1:12 ESV] For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.  Paul's claim is that he is not a student of the gospel, as are the Galatians, and all those who set themselves up to teach the Galatians.  They all studied it, learned it from others.  Paul claims he was given the gospel directly from Jesus, as did the rest of the apostles.  He is certainly, indisputably unique in the time and manner of receiving.  This is surely the basis for many attacks against him.  And you can see why it would be.  It never goes away, and he is constantly defending his apostleship.

2021 - What the Judaizers are likely saying is that they are men and Paul's a man, and so they have as much authority to "interpret" the gospel as Paul did.  They were probably saying that Paul had in fact made interpretations and had come to a wrong conclusion.  He was in error, because he was just a man, and maybe those who taught Paul the gospel had done a poor job or something had been lost in the interpretation so Paul's presentation of the gospel to the Galatians was wrong to start with. So Paul starts out saying that he wasn't taught the gospel by any man, not even by the original 11.  There have been no "human" filters placed on what Paul preached as gospel.  It came to him direct from God, pure and untouched by the mind of intervening teachers.

Paul tells us about what happened after the Damascus road conversion.  He went to Arabia before consulting with anyone in Jerusalem, then went back to Damascus afterward.  He is using this argument to say that the apostles in Jerusalem didn't educate him in the gospel and then send him out to teach.  He says his knowledge came from a higher source.  Only after three years did Paul go to Jerusalem and there he only saw Peter and James (James the brother of Jesus, here called "apostle", since John's brother James had been killed by Herod already when Paul went to Jerusalem).  Then he headed out to Syria and Cilicia on his missionary journey, still not recognized by sight to the Jerusalem Church as a whole.  
2021-2, Hmm.  Paul does clearly endow James the brother of Jesus as an apostle also here.  MSB does not address this label at all.  It seems to open up a whole new box of problems for Paul to state it this way.  And there is no one to tell me why.

2023 - This is an extremely important aspect of all that we have in the Bible from Paul.  He wrote a LOT of it.  He claims that he got it all directly from God, as revelation, in essentially the same way that Moses got the Pentateuch, and Isaiah got Isaiah.  Paul is not a teacher, passing on what he learned from teachers before him.  He claims authority to "write the book" that others are to teach.  The timeline indicates that he got most of what was revealed to him in Arabia.  Then he was in Damascus for three years.  I don't think we are told what went on there during that time.  Perhaps more revelation.  In Syria!  So he has said all this to show that he is not taught but has received revelation directly fro God - which by definition makes him an apostle, right?  And then he turns right around and names James the brother of Jesus an apostle also.  We can make this fit the definition because surely James learned directly from his brother.  But he didn't travel around with Jesus.  In fact, he only became a convert after the resurrection.  But Jesus did speak to him directly after his resurrection.  If we make THAT the criteria, then there were what 500 apostles made in these verses:  6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [1Co 15:6-7 ESV]?  But there is a qualifier in 7...THEN to James, then to ALL the apostles.  He does not say that those 500 are NOT apostles, but they'd have had to have been there at that vs 7b moment to qualify.  Besides the 12, James, and Paul, no other apostles were named(Check that.  I think Titus and Timothy are also called apostles, but from What I've seen, most consider them Apostolic Assistants, or Assisting Apostles), but we cannot know how many Paul included here.  Probably there is another passage where the qualifications are delineated more clearly.  MSB does say that "the 500" are mentioned only here.  Remember that Paul is naming all the witnesses that saw the risen Christ.  Paul is NOT giving us a list of ALL who can call themselves apostles.  I am considering that the two groups might be one and the same.  I know

Chapter 2
Then after 14 years???  This is the time elapsed from that first visit with Paul and James until his attendance at the Jerusalem Council.  I had no idea he was 14 years preaching before that time.  Can this be reconciled with the accounts in Acts???  MSB note says the language used refers to these two visits in connection with his case for credibility, and does not exclude other visits that may have taken place - in fact did take place per Acts - in between the two visits he mentions here.

Paul notes the results of the Jerusalem Council, and how that is consistent with what he has continued to teach - that circumcision and the full law of Moses are not prerequisites for Gentiles to be saved, and that in addition to that, the Jerusalem church has authorized him as a sort of chief missionary to the Gentiles while Peter focuses on bringing the circumcised to repentance.  His point is that his own role is co-equal with Peter's role.  No one questions Peter's authority apparently and Paul here makes the case that he has as much authority and should also be believed and not undermined.

Paul speaks of his altercation with Peter, and uses his "winning" of that confrontation to make a huge point here.  He says that both he and Peter are Jews by nature.  While with Paul, Peter had begun to associate with Gentiles, even eating with them.  This was something Jews just didn't do before the gospel.  But Peter sort of "pulled away" from them when some folks from home came to visit.  The folks from home were from the Jerusalem church, and likely there were still a lot of Jews associating only with Jews there.  This would be accompanied by looking down on Gentiles, and also on Jews who associated with them directly.  So Peter had pulled back.  Paul's accusation is in this verse:
14 ...I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" [Gal 2:14b ESV]

That is, both Paul and Peter were born Jews, born as sons of Abraham, and grew up practicing the Law.  If it was ok for Peter to set that law aside and associate with the Gentiles - that is, he no longer considered it incumbent on himself to keep the law - then how can he stand there and say that the Gentiles have to keep it.  Flawless logic.  If these Jews are ok with depending on faith alone for their salvation, then how much more should the Gentiles depend on faith alone.

2021-2, I think it is likely that beyond the above, some in Corinth were saying that Paul couldn't be an apostle because he associated with Gentiles.  They would be saying this not only to show that he could not be an apostle, but that he also should have no real credibility for teaching the word.  After all, he regularly makes himself unclean by associating with Gentiles.  Why, they shouldn't even let him in the church this way, and he does so without any shame or remorse.  He does not even recognize the horrible significance of what he is doing as it impacts his disqualification as a teacher.  Yes.  This is why Paul brings all this up.  And then he shows that Peter ended up submitting to Paul's assessment of things, that he, Paul, prevailed in teaching over the unassailably qualified and titled (apostle) Peter.

2021 amplified and expanded - He then makes the argument that if they follow the teaching of Christ, which is that faith alone saves, and by following that teaching they sin against the Law by not keeping the Law that they are supposed to be keeping, then that makes Christ a teacher of sin, a provoker of sin, because Christ preached "faith alone".  Jesus never said that to get to heaven they had to believe in him in addition to keeping the law.  He always said they had to believe, and stopped right there.  So if keeping the law was necessary, and Jesus never ever said so, then Jesus had taught only a partial salvation, and leaving out the part that he never taught will still condemn one to hell.  This is Paul's point.  The Judaizers, by insisting that the Law be "put back in", or that it remain a requirement, says that Jesus' own teaching of the gospel was poor and incomplete.  By extension, Paul is saying that the gospel he preached to them when he was there is exactly the same as the gospel Christ preached while on earth.  

2023 - This same teaching applies to baptism, as below.  This might be the best argument ever that baptism is not saving.

(((2021 - Now let's think about this argument as applied to other things, for instance baptism.  I don't know for sure, but I don't recall that there are any "red letters" where Jesus says "baptism".  So if Jesus preached faith alone, and never once said baptism too, can't we make exactly the same argument about baptism that Paul did about the Law???  Oh my.  This seems like the best argument against regenerative baptism that I have ever heard.  I MUST do a study and see if Jesus ever even used the word baptism after the Jordan River.  The MSB note doesn't go here.  The MSB note points out that Paul has just said he braced Peter about bringing the dietary laws back in.  By behaving as if those still apply, Peter was negating Jesus' teaching in Mk 7:19 where Jesus said what goes in won't contaminate, only what comes out.  So what you eat - Mosaic Law or not - will not condemn you.  So if the Judaizers are right, and you must still obey the dietary laws, then Jesus was teaching his followers to sin.  MSB does not broaden the argument to the extent that I did, and say that if Jesus "didn't" say, each time he talked about salvation, that you still had to keep the law in addition to the faith in him that was required, then Jesus was a poor teacher.  I have heard and thought before that there are numerous verses about someone asking how to be saved and the answer is either "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ", or "believe and be baptized".  So the first version says nothing wrong, it just doesn't say it all - if indeed baptism is required.  Paul's argument though, in these verses, is not about what Jesus did not say, but per MSB is about the Judaizer's teaching contradicting what Jesus did say.  And that's a lot different.  So even though I do still want to do this study, and I want to compile all the verses where someone ever asked Jesus how to be saved and see if Jesus ever included baptism, I will not be able to use this passage in Galatians as a proof text for it.)))
2023 - I am not even sure of my own conclusion above that I cannot use this as proof text.  I think the difference is that Jesus DID say that what went in didn't profane the eater, so if you say that in fact it still does, then you make Jesus a liar.  Jesus never said anything like "you don't need to be baptized", in which case saying that you do makes Jesus a liar.  So the baptism thing is not of the same magnitude as this about the dietary laws.  But see next paragraph!

2022 - Reading the paragraph above this year, I disagree with myself once again.  I DO think this is a compelling argument against baptismal regeneration.  Jesus never ever said that you had to do anything but believe in him to be saved (subject to my studying his words to see if he ever used the word baptism in connection with salvation).  Paul's argument is that if circumcision or the Mosaic Law were required in addition to belief in Jesus, then Jesus' teaching of the gospel was in every case incomplete, poor, and insufficient for salvation in the absence of additional information from another source. This would most certainly impugn everything else Jesus ever taught as possibly incomplete also.  And Paul says Jesus' presentation of the gospel was NOT incomplete.  If it was...it all comes tumbling down.  So Paul's argument that an unimpeachable source - Peter - yielded to Paul's view that since the Mosaic Law was not required IN ADDITION TO faith for salvation, either in part or in whole, according to Jesus, THEN the Mosaic Law cannot be a requirement for salvation - else Jesus' teaching was poor and incomplete - and Peter recognized Paul's authority in the matter as equal to his own, so then should the Galatians not only recognize Paul's authority, but should also reject the teaching of the Judaizers that required circumcision, dietary law adherence, keeping feasts, or anything else in the Mosaic Law.  And BY EXTENSION, if Jesus NEVER said baptism was required in addition to belief, and you are not willing to say Jesus was a poor teacher, then anyone who teaches that baptism is required for salvation is teaching beyond the gospel that Christ preached.  THIS is my argument from now on.  I WILL do this research on the words of Jesus concerning baptism.  In fact, I'm moving it to the top of the list.  (11/19/22 - Jesus never told anyone they needed to be baptized.  He used the word on several occasions, particularly when he asked the Pharisees whether John's baptism came from man or from God.  They speculate that if they'd said from God, he'd have asked why then, did they not believe John.  But they did not say "well then he'll ask why we didn't get baptized".  So.  Jesus NEVER directly connected baptism with the gospel, and therefore the same argument Paul uses to say that the Law is not connected with the gospel also applies to baptism.
2022 - Reading back through this chapter to find "THE VERSE" on which all this is based, the verse that says if Jesus left it out then either it isn't required or Jesus was a poor teacher, was disappointing.  The closest I can get to that is this one: 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [Gal 2:17 ESV].  I mean, this is the verse, but it requires some context and some thought before its application to either the Mosaic or to baptism is clear.  So this argument that I now see as THE argument is NOT a short answer.  It takes time, so don't trot it out in a casual conversation.  It is an argument for a serious study.

2023 - Here is the verse:
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. [Gal 2:16 ESV].  I note, this year, that it specifically says that a person is not justified by "works of the law".  The dietary laws were part of the law.  Nothing required by the law was required any longer.  Only the gospel that said by faith alone is now required.  Baptism is not in the law, not any part of the law.  Baptism was something else.  Yet we still have the principle, we can still claim the principle.  If Jesus did not require that ANYTHING from the law of Moses be retained and kept in order to be saved, and if, to the Jews, there was NO LAW higher than the law of Moses, why would Jesus require some "new" ritual such as baptism, in order to be saved?  I don't think John "invented" baptism.  I think he adopted it, but he was not the first to practice it.  There is a verse that say/implies this.  I need to find it and put it here.  So all these waffles on whether this argument is correct or not have served to deepen my understanding, to take it each time to another level.  And where am I this year?  If the law of Moses was not necessary to salvation, then nothing "less" than the law of Moses would be required either.  I think that is perhaps the best statement of this argument yet.
2023 - And the next verse:
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [Gal 2:17 ESV].  I hate to admit it, but the NLT makes this much more clear.  It can be figured out from ESV, but is so much easier with NLT:
17 But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! [Gal 2:17 NLT].  IF, "all" you do is have faith in Christ for your salvation - which "cleanses us from all sin", and YET, because we are not following the Law of Moses, then we are still sinners for not following the law, then faith in Christ was NOT enough.  Our sins are not all gone, but we continue to sin because we break the law of Moses.  Jesus specifically taught that following the law did not save.  If it is nevertheless required, in addition to faith, then Jesus not only had it wrong, but his teaching that the law need not be followed made it impossible to be saved.   BUT, the way it really works is that "I am crucified with Christ".  Since I died, I am dead to the law, and no longer need to serve the law.  On faith is required.  In my "previous life", obedience to the law was required, but after death, and then "resurrection", it is NOT required.  Oh my...and baptism symbolizes this death to the law of works.  It shows that we died with Christ, and rose in him, not in the law.
2023 - The paragraph below, starting with "further", is also very important.  IF the law could save, Jesus did not have to die.  How ludicrous is that whole idea.  

Vs 16 ended with "the law cannot justify".  So those who follow ONLY the law, are not saved.  I think the point here is that IF adherence to the law

Then he uses the phrase "May it never be!".  It is a ridiculous thought, but that is what the teaching of the Judaizers implies.  That following after Christ's own teaching leads directly to sin.

Further, Paul says that he was crucified with Christ.  He is saying that under the Law, he was found guilty.  Once executed, he is dead, and the law has no more power over him.  Christ's death made Him beyond the law, and when we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into his death, which also makes us beyond the Mosaic Law.  Then the last point of the chapter...if grace can be obtained by the Law, then why did Jesus have to die?  (2021 - This is an amazing point.  It all falls apart if God required His son to die on the cross when it was unnecessary from the outset.  If people "could" be good enough under the law, then there was no need for Christ to satisfy the law.  Men could have been restored to fellowship  with God on their own merits.  This is a critical point to maintain.  The Law could never have saved even one person.)  What purpose did it serve if there was another way to be saved?  No one can keep the law, therefore the law cannot save (vs 16b...because by works of the law no one will be justified. [Gal 2:16 ESV]).  Violation of the Law results in a death sentence.  Only by carrying out the sentence can the law be satisfied.  Only by Jesus death can it be carried out.  And since he died for those who would be saved, then we all who are saved through him have satisfied justice, and now the law has no power over us.  We are no longer subject to it.
2022 - In light of Grudem's Chapter 27 on the atonement, I would now say that Jesus died for the violations of the Law by others.  They could never go into heaven until THEY paid the price for sin, which is death - not just physical but spiritual.  Jesus' death was required to satisfy God's wrath against all men, not to satisfy God's wrath against Jesus.  It was a substitutionary death, not an execution for his own sin.
2022 - Paul connects baptism with Christ's death, burial and resurrection, but also with our "position" in God's eyes.  Hmm...Jesus may never have said "...and be baptized" , but he most certainly set the example of doing so.  AND, Jesus ALWAYS set the example of keeping the whole Law too!  So the argument above withstands this very compelling rebuttal!
 

Chapter 3
Paul says he only has one question of them:  Did they receive the Spirit by the works of the law (that is, did the Holy Spirit indwell them because of their perfect keeping of the law) or by hearing with faith?  The obvious answer is that they received by hearing.  The Galatians can look individually to their own personal experience of salvation and recall the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which in every case followed their hearing the gospel of faith in Christ alone as the way of salvation.  Not one got "indwelt" while eating matzah on the Sabbath.  So how can they now expect to be made perfect by the flesh (obeying the old law) when they began in the Spirit?  The flesh - that is, compliance with the law - has no further part to play.  They are saved.  It is done.

2021 - This also says a lot about whether those out in the dark of Africa who have never heard can be saved.  I think this verse would be a proof text to say that they cannot.  Faith comes by hearing.  Only by hearing.  But I suspect a lot of "explanation and amplification" has been built around this concept also.

Paul seems to be replying to specific points the Judaizers are making as they teach false doctrine, but he does not state their arguments.  So you kind of have to read the counterargument and then reconstruct the original argument.  

***Paul now makes an argument that Abraham himself was justified by faith alone (he came before the law after all) and the coming of Christ was foretold to Abraham when he was told that all nations would be blessed in him.  This is to connect Gentile Abraham's salvation by faith before the law was given with the salvation of Gentiles now, after the Law's requirements have been satisfied.  Therefore, those who are being saved now are the sons of Abraham, and recipients of the promises made to Abraham.  Apparently, the Judaizers were saying that salvation is a promise made to Abraham's descendants only.  Since Gentiles are NOT his descendants, they must "become Jews" in order to be saved, and this "becoming Jews" means being circumcised and living under the law.  Otherwise, they cannot claim the inheritance made to their father.  It is an insidious argument.  The Judaizers were using fear of hell to compel the Gentiles to adopt a false religion.  Is that not what all the cults do today???  That is surely why we need the Bible, and why we should be ecstatic that it is available to us to read for ourselves rather than taking the word of those who call themselves "teachers".  Gnosticism was the same sort of thing, putting the teachers in between God and man to elevate the position of the teachers!
2021-2, I also think that Paul is showing that the Holy Spirit never comes through the Law.  Those who stick with the Law as the core of their religion are never indwelt.  There is no escrow.  There is also no assurance.  No one who relies on their own effort at Law for salvation will ever experience the Holy Spirit inside them.  Only by hearing.  Preaching.  I notice also this year just how insidious the Pharisees had made things.  They had taken the Law, given to curse the people - to demonstrate daily that the required perfection was not achievable by man - and made it doable.  They could all do it!  They'd made it easy, even.  Turned the whole Law upside down to what it's intended meaning was.  They had diluted its intended effect of conviction of sin and need to the point of making it a big yawn.  This is why it had to fall.  This is why they had to fall.  I like the way Paul ties pre-Law to post-crucifixion, leaving the Law sort of as a relic of the past.  No wonder they had such a problem with him.
2023 - This passage is also used to say that the church is now the recipient of the promises made to Israel.  This is a key passage supporting Covenant theology with Dispensationalism.  29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. [Gal 3:29 ESV].  This says that Gentiles are Abraham's spiritual descendants and recipients therefore of the spiritual promises.  First among those would be the prophecies of the coming of the Indwelling Holy Spirit.  Under this dispensation, BOTH Jews and Gentiles are spiritual recipients of the promises of salvation.  I note that MacA's Biblical Doctrine quotes this verse both under a section on the church, and as part of "The Future".  I need to take a much closer look at the context here and see if Paul had "the church" in view here - and it's properties and membership - or he is combining the Old and New Covenants - or if in fact he is talking about WHY you DO NOT have to follow the Law to perfect your salvation.  I think the answer to that one is pretty obvious.  In this chapter - indeed in this book - Paul is refuting the Judaizer's teaching that BEFORE you can truly be a Christian, you must first be a Jew and practice the Law, and continue to do so.  He is not talking about what constitutes a church and certainly is not talking about the Future purpose of the church in the end times.  You just cannot get there.

Now Paul shows the purpose of the Law.  It's real purpose.  He quotes the OT saying that if you don't keep the whole law you are cursed.  This is the Law's result - since it can never all be followed.  The Law is intended to curse all mankind.  If it was possible to keep the whole Law, then that is all that would be needed.  So why would the OT say "The righteous man shall live by faith" instead of that he shall live by law?  It is because the law cannot be kept.  "Cursed is every one who hangs upon a tree".  Christ therefore took the curse pronounced and required by the law upon himself, satisfying the law once and for all.  Once that was done, the blessing of Abraham on all nations of the world became available through faith.
(No...I don't quite have this one worded correctly, because I don't quite understand it.  It has been an intense morning with all this coming at me together.  My brain is getting really tired.)

2022 - The Law came that the whole world might be shown as cursed by sin.  No one can keep the whole Law - at least not as Jesus explained it.  It wasn't just about rote, it was about keeping your mind clean and pure also.  Even though the Pharisees claimed to get the external keeping of the Law correct, Jesus taught that it was the heart - not the hands - to which the Law applied.  So.  All are cursed.  The whole world is cursed, according to the LAW.  It showed that NO ONE can meet the standard.  So what next?  The Law was about cursing all men, but it was never about justifying men.  He quotes the verse that says the just shall live...by faith.  It does not say, here or anywhere else, that we live by the Law.  The Law curses, but does not justify.  Only faith can justify.  Vs 12 makes this clear.  The Law is about "doing", it is about "works", it is NOT about faith.  So all are cursed by the Law, but the Law cannot deliver anyone from that curse.  We all stand condemned to death by the Law, and the Law provides no route, no method, no procedure for our redemption.  So what God did was make Christ a curse for us.  The Law provided for this in that it says "cursed is everyone who hangs upon a tree".  So the crucifixion showed beyond a doubt that God made Christ a curse FOR US.  The death of Christ, as cursed on behalf of all men to pay the penalty demanded by the Law, but which the Law could not itself pay, REMOVED the Law.  Abrogated is the word.  The crucifixion was the end of the Mosaic Law.  Hmm...It was the end of the sacrifices for sin, it was end of the priesthood as intermediary in settling the obligations of man as to the requirements of God through the Law.  Acts tells us it was the end of the dietary laws - or does it?  Jesus showed that if you're hungry the Sabbath Laws don't apply, maybe if you were hungry enough the dietary laws could be set aside also.  
2022 - I think you can also argue that freedom in Christ in fact sets aside all Laws.  Even adultery no longer results in stoning.  It is not what you should do.  Jesus preached against it.  But it does not condemn us any more to even physical death much less spiritual - as it did under the Law.  Not sure about this.  It is a struggle for me still to articulate just what went away with the abrogation of the Law.  There is this...33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [Jer 31:33 KJV], but I think this is a Millennial verse.  I don't think Jeremiah is prophesying about the Age of the Gentiles, those guys didn't recognize that there would even be such a time.  So what are the rules for the Gentiles?  Perhaps we need to think of it as the way things were in Abraham's time, before the Law.  Each man does what he thinks best - with the indwelling Holy Spirit as guide.  It is unreasonable to think that the third person of the Trinity, guiding our conscience from inside us, is going to say adultery is now ok.  Or that homosexuality is now ok, or robbery, or cursing our parents, or any of that other stuff specifically prohibited as sin in the Law.  The dietary laws were to separate Israel from surrounding nations.  To make them so weird that no one would want to intermarry with them and so keep them a separate race, God's chosen people, who will receive the promises during the Millennial.  And the sacrifices were for accidental - not intentional - sins.  And the priests were the intermediaries who offered the sacrifices and who once yearly delayed the punishment required by the extant curse that the Law laid on all.  Christ abrogated that part and we went back to a direct, unconditional covenant with God, individually, as it was in Abraham's day.  We live by faith, unconditionally, not by the Law.
Perhaps that is the best understanding of what was abrogated that I've ever had...and could put into words.  I'm saying the Law had three aspects:  Moral, dietary, and sacrificial.  Everything fits under those three.  Dietary and sacrificial are completely gone.  Moral is still here as to how we should behave in order to please God, but the punishments required by the Law are gone.  What the Law calls sin is still sin, but you don't get stoned for it anymore.  God judges us, when our time comes, for the things we decide to do.

(2021 - Paul's argument here is couched in a way that the Jews would understand in that he makes many references to OT scripture.  This makes sense in that the Judaizers would likely have been partially quoting OT verses that supported their position.  So Paul here points out some verses that they are not taking into account:
First, Paul quotes Dt. 27:26:
26 "'Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.' [Deu 27:26 ESV]  This is the last verse of a lot of curses, and the most all-encompassing of all.  You are cursed if you don't keep the law.  That would mean the whole law.  Break any tiny portion of the law, and you are cursed, condemned, out of fellowship.
He continues with this verse:
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." [Gal 3:11 ESV]  Hmm...So the argument is that we would not need faith to live if we could live by the law.  This quote is from Hab 2:4  

In the next verse, Paul says that the law and faith are separate things.  Habakkuk wasn't saying that righteousness under the law somehow leads to faith:
12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." [Gal 3:12 ESV]  This quote is from Lev 18:5, which says:  
5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD. [Lev 18:5 ESV]  This verse does NOT say, if you keep the rules AND have faith, then you live.  It says if you keep the rules, that's all you have to do.  So there are two ways, but only one is possible, and you choose one.  If you rely on faith, you don't need the law.  If you rely on the law, you do not need faith.  Mutually exclusive is what they are.

Next, he ties Abraham's justification by faith, which was before there was ever any law, with the justification of Christ's time by faith alone, and doing away with any further necessity of obedience to the Mosaic Laws.  The point is that the Law could never be kept.  The law was there to show how all sin, and all are cursed, because none can meet the standard necessary to be justified before God by personal obedience.  Further, Jesus said that sin could, would, and did occur even without violating the law.  The Pharisees had made an art of sinning without "technically" violating the law.  Jesus raised the standard even higher.  And so enter grace, by faith, and the only real possible way of salvation.  Then the verse about cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, a curse that anticipated the death of Christ by the Romans, and leaving no doubt that he became a substitutionary curse in our place to satisfy a law that was not only impossible to keep, but still left room for other sins that would still condemn us even if we perfectly kept the law.  

And to close his argument, he goes back to the beginning of his argument.  They received the Spirit after hearing, not after keeping the law.  Paul says that receiving the Spirit is the proof of the promise to Abraham fulfilled in each person.  That Gentiles receipt of the Spirit is proof of the promise that in Abraham all nations would be blessed is being fulfilled right there among them, and it is by faith, as it was with Abraham.  All that stuff about the law was something else, and it has nothing to do with the Gentiles, and it has no business being "added" to the gospel that Paul preached to them.  

Here's the problem.  How many could follow such an argument - unless they had the Spirit within them already?  This is not evangelism to the unsaved, these first three chapters, to this point at least, are written to saved people who have let error slip in.  But the fact that they had received the Spirit - the fact of which is Paul's most crucial point - means that they were still saved.  He does not tell them that they've messed up and lost their salvation and they need to be re-saved.  He tells them they need to get their practice of salvation back in line with biblical teaching.  It is not a back up and start over so much as it is a "get out of the bar ditch  and back up on the pavement"!

A new direction now:
Paul says that the Law, when it came 430 years after Abraham, did NOT make the original, ratified, and agreed covenant (contract) null and void.  That is, the Law did not replace the promise.  Not any more than a contract signed and ratified properly can be changed afterwards.  God's promise to Abraham stands.  God didn't tell Abraham that the contract they had would be automatically nullified when the Law came along.  The Law is something else entirely.  BUT, if you want to claim that the promise - the Spirit - comes only through the Law, then it no longer is even about the contract God had with Abraham, because that was about God's promise.  

2022 - Here is how we ought to think of Jesus, and it is different than I have ever thought of him before:  16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. [Gal 3:16 ESV].  I always read this as promises made to ALL the offspring of Abraham, as a promise to the nation of Israel fulfilled in the Millennial.  But Paul is very specific here that this promise was to one, and only one, offspring - and that offspring is Jesus.  The promises made to Abraham will be fulfilled in Christ.  Christ will have the land, Christ will rule, Christ will bless all nations, including Gentiles.  The blessings on the Gentiles started in Paul's day - all nations are being blessed now BECAUSE OF Jesus.  But not all nations will inherit the land.  Jesus will inherit the land, and will rule over it as it is filled with others.  The church will be gone, so Zion and the church are not the same.  The promises about the land are not fulfilled to all nations, but only to Israel.  To the direct descendants of Abraham.  But the church, intangible and consisting of all nations, receives blessings.  Here are some relevant verses:

7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him. [Gen 12:7 ESV].  Both "your" and "offspring" are singular.  
15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. [Gen 13:15 ESV].  "...and to thy seed forever." is how we find it in KJV.  It is like one word with two prefixes and a suffix - so four parts.   Both thy and seed are masculine singular.  The land is to be given to ONE person, ONE descendant, and that is Christ.  This is exactly Paul's point.  Ahhh....but then the very next verse says...
16 I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. [Gen 13:16 ESV].  Offspring/seed in this verse is exactly the same (Sp2ms) as the previous verse.  How though can we read "as the dust of the earth" in any way other than very very plural?  So...what are we to do now?  Paul states emphatically that offspring was singular and that it references Christ.  Hmm...Perhaps we need to look at these verses as each being about a separate promise.  Even though offspring is only singular in the first, it a promise to give the land to a single individual.  A King, perhaps, since Christ is in view according to Paul in Galatians.  But then in 16, there will be an offspring to correspond the dust particles on the earth.  Many individuals, though each is unique and separate.  This must be the way Hebrew - in that day - stated such a promise.  Note that in English, offspring is the word used (or seed), both of which are both the singular and plural forms of those words.  Almost as if the translators didn't want to take sides.  I wonder exactly how you would say "offsprings" in Hebrew?  And IF I just wanted to argue, I would wonder which verse Paul was referencing when he made his statement in Gal 3:16.

That got me through vs 18.  So next year, when I get to this, I'm going to go faster through the first part, and leave myself plenty of time to focus on vvs 19-29.  As I read through those, I suspect that they have just as much import as what came before.  I just am worn out yet again in 2021, so again I just read the rest of it.  It is as intense as what came before, and those two controversy verses are right at the end of chapter three.  I am too tired to deal with them.  I hope, I plan, to come back later after I've done some other things.  Maybe I'll be refreshed enough then to tackle these last few verses.  And I just now noticed that I read all this today in the NASB, instead of the ESV as I have been reading.

2021-2, vss 19, 20:
[Gal 3:19 ESV] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.
[Gal 3:20 ESV] Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
This is the question, directly answered here by Paul.  If we can  understand his answer...
In 19, I think he is saying that the Law was given to delay God's righteous judgment until the perfect price could be paid.  The Law was there to bridge the time from Abraham to the Messiah - the promised one through whom all would be blessed.  That promise of "through your offspring will all the world be blessed" was never about the people of Israel, it is not offspring plural, it is offspring singular.  It means until Jesus Christ performs the work he is sent to perform.  Perhaps the Law was to preserve and move forward the promise, to remind the world symbolically, repeatedly that the promise was coming.  But then, why wait 430 years after Abraham?  Because the people had lost most of the real meaning of that promised while in bondage in Egypt.  They needed it back, revitalized, taught to all generations in between.  So the Law reminded them why they needed Jesus - because they could not attain to God's standards - while pointing to the purpose of his coming, which was substitutionary death, sufficient not just in the flesh for Israel as Abraham's descendant, but sufficient in Spirit for all who would hear and be saved.
What is this about angels and intermediaries then?  MSB says that the Bible says angels were involved in the giving of the law, but does not explain their specific role.  These references are cited - Ac 7:53 and Heb 2:2.  Here they are:
[Act 7:53 ESV] you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."
[Heb 2:2 ESV] For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,
So there are the angels, sort of, but certainly satisfyingly.  But nothing about an intermediary, unless that is a reference to Moses.  In vs 20, MSB notes says that the point is apparently (and that is John MacArthur saying "apparently") that a mediator is required when more than one party is involved (as in the Law was a conditional covenant, so both sides had to be monitored/mediated?) but the covenant with Abraham was unconditional.  No intermediary, no priest, God saves us by the Holy Spirit through the blood of Christ, with no high priest in between.  I think that's what it means.  Perhaps angels is about the Levites, and the rest of the Aaronic beyond the high priest himself.  A conditional contract between two or more is enforceable, but by a third party.  More than just the parties to the contract are required.  This was the Law.  This is why a priesthood was required, a high priest between God and man - Moses to start, the high priest after that.
(2021-2, out of time on a Friday morning again, did not get to dig into vss 21-29.  Can hopefully come back to them after school drop offs.)
2021-2, Later...This verse:
[Gal 3:22 ESV] But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
NASB translates it "Scripture has shut up everything".  MSB note says the Greek word in question means "shut up on every side", like fish enclosed in a net.  Says the idea is that man is trapped by sin, away from God, and was helpless to escape that net under the law.  The Law provided no egress from that net.  There is no MSB comment about it being "Scripture", upper case, that forms the prison  or net.  Surely this is a reference to the books of the Law, the Pentateuch.  It seems to me that those walls - that net that the Scripture supplied, though insufficient to save, was necessary to preserve the promise.  Perhaps it could be thought of as enclosing the promise, keeping it safe from the world, from Moses to Christ.  Preserving the semblance and the promise until the offspring arrived.  Yes...vs 24 pretty much says that.  In fact, imprisoned and shut up may both be bad translations.  I don't have a better word though.
Here:
[Gal 3:25 ESV] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,  Guardian is referring, I think, to "Scripture".  But we know Paul still applies "honor thy father and thy mother" to the New Testament Church, and we know he says adultery in Corinth, incest, and homosexuality are all still wrong in the NT church AFTER the abrogation of the Law.  Surely we don't want to say that the letter of the law has gone away but the intent remains?  Honor thy father and mother is from the 10, which also were before the law.  It is hard to rigidly define what remains, how we know it is in agreement with God's "forever" laws, and so on.  Do we do a search outside the detailed laws, and if we can find a prohibition there, then it is still wrong and we're sure it is wrong?  Or is it less rigid than that, depending on our communion with the Holy Spirit, in tune with our consciences, to determine right and wrong?  That last sure opens it up to debate through time, and I don't think it's supposed to be that way. Or maybe it is just that I prefer it not be that way.  We know from the NT that it is ok to eat ham and bacon now.  That part of the law is no more.  Is it only the prohibitions in the law that fell?  No, the sacrificial part also fell.
Well...this is another of those ideas that a person ought to study out so that an articulable position can be adopted.  Yeah.  I like that phrase.

2021-As to those two controversial verses right at the end of Chapter 3, we are most certainly not talking here about how to conduct the business of the church.  That is far from what Paul is talking about.  In context, Paul is saying there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, and you do NOT have to be a Jew to received the Holy Spirit.   What you are - race, creed, color or natural origin - is irrelevant now to your qualification for salvation.  Faith saves you, no matter who or what you are.  That is the point.  Salvation in Christ, not who can teach Sunday school

2021-2, These last three verses:
[Gal 3:27 ESV] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[Gal 3:28 ESV] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[Gal 3:29 ESV] And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Here is the proof text for saying that Israel and the church are one and the same.  In Christ = Abraham's offspring.  Who inherits the promise?  The children of Abraham.  This would be all the proof you needed, were it not for all those verses about a Millennial during which the sacrifices would return, and the judging of the 12 tribes and the 144,000, and the return of Israel to the Promised Land.  I don't think all those are as easily explained as being Zion/Church combined as these three verses can be explained as being focused on the current argument, and not on end time organizational matters.

2022 - That last verse, 29, I still need to work out.  For now, I would say that since the Gentiles are blessed - since all nations are blessed through Christ - and since the blessings were to come to the descendant of Abraham, that is, to Christ, and since we as saved Gentiles are "in Christ", then in that sense we are Abraham's descendants, and so heirs - IN CHRIST - according to the promise.  NOT as stand-alone descendants in the same manner as Israel.
I need to go back and look specifically at the promises to Abraham - the one that is singular and NOT plural - and see just what is there.

2023 - This passage is also used to say that the church is now the recipient of the promises made to Israel.  This is a key passage supporting Covenant theology as contrasted with Dispensationalism.  29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. [Gal 3:29 ESV].  This says that Gentiles are Abraham's spiritual descendants and recipients therefore of the spiritual promises.  It cannot mean that we become physical descendants and so recipients of physical promises.  First among the spiritual promises are the prophecies of the coming of the Indwelling Holy Spirit.  Under this dispensation, BOTH Jews and Gentiles are spiritual recipients of the promises of salvation.  That is, they are both heirs, and co-heirs, equal in all respects.  Note that MacA's Biblical Doctrine quotes this verse both under a section on the church, and as part of "The Future".  I think the key to understanding this verse as it relates to the church is in taking a much closer look at the context here.  Does Paul have "the church" in view here - and it's properties and membership such that the church supersedes, even replaces Israel as recipient of the promises, or is talking about WHY you DO NOT have to follow the Law to perfect your salvation.  Isn't he saying that under the NC, salvation accrues by faith alone, and that being Jewish in the religious sense as opposed to the national sense, is no longer a consideration.  The Law was given to Israel, exclusively really, with only a few exceptions.  The church is give to ALL with no exceptions whatever.  So the same faith that saved Abraham now saves everyone.  It saved Abraham BEFORE there was Law and it the promise made to him of salvation BEFORE the Law is not a promise to ALL - not just his physical descendants - AFTER the Law.  The real point is that the Law is over, done, and complete and that in fact NO ONE need follow it.  I think that pretty much covers this verse finally.  In this chapter - indeed in this book - Paul is refuting the Judaizer's teaching that BEFORE you can truly be a Christian, you must first be a Jew and practice the Law, and continue to do so.  He is not talking about what constitutes a church and certainly is not talking about the Future purpose of the church in the end times.  You just cannot get there.  And look at vs 2 of this chapter:  2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? [Gal 3:2 ESV].  This is about the Law and the New Covenant, not about the vehicle of the Law - the Temple perhaps - and the vehicle of the New Covenant - the church.  It just cannot be turned into that.  Also in this verse Paul tells us he is contrasting spirit and flesh.
2023 - Oh my...Just look back at this verse for confirmation:  14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. [Gal 3:14 ESV].  We of the New Covenant are heirs of the promised Spirit, not heirs of the land of Israel.  Clearly Paul has the spiritual promises to Abraham in mind, and the future still holds the fulfilment of the physical promises dealing with the land of Israel exclusively for the physical descendants of Abraham.

Chapter 4
So I was brain dead yesterday (1/20/21) by 3:18, and just read through 3:19=29.  I hope that does not hinder me from understanding today's reading.  Just took a look at MSB's outline, and there is a break right there after 18.  However, we stay on the same "big point" all the way through chapter 4.  So what I didn't "focus" on yesterday was called "The Purpose of the Law", and today starts with "The Sonship of Believers".  And...I think I am ok with the purpose of the law.  So going ahead instead of back today.  (2021-2, Spent quite a bit more time on 19-29 yesterday.  I understand it better this second time in '21 than I did the first.  Chapter 3 is a very involved chapter.  2022 - Even better yesterday.  I think I am understanding it all quite a bit better.)

In those days, children of the father of the household were raised much the same as were slaves.  They had people in charge of them, telling them what to do.  They learn the basics of every day life - whether their future holds slavery or inheritance.  Children - heirs - were raised this way until the time appointed by their father's arrived, at which time they moved from pupil to master.  Paul uses this analogy as a comparison to the time spent with the Law in effect in the world.  The Law was training slaves and heirs alike, all the same, and was the "waiting time" for the heirs, as they learned the basics.  But in "the fullness of time", when God decided the wait was over, then Jesus came.  When Jesus came, he was under the Law, fulfilled the Law, and by his death "redeemed" us from the law.  Redeemed us from bondage to any master but Him.  We were "bought" as a slave is bought, and once we are bought, we are free from that old master - the Law - and in a position to be adopted by our new master - the father of the household - as a son, not as just one of the slaves.  We are all adopted and legal heirs now of the one master, of the head of the house.  Paul again says that it is the indwelling Spirit that evidences this relationship.  Only the heirs have the Spirit of the Father.

ESV now makes a paragraph break, but I'm not sure it belongs there.  Seems to me that Paul is still summing up his point on children learning the basics from the slaves in charge of them, before assuming their role as sons.  NASB makes a break here too, though, and so does MSB's outline.  The next point is "The Futility of Ritualism".  

Starts with this verse:
8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. [Gal 4:8 ESV]
Per MSB, this is saying that before the Galatian Christian's were saved, they had worshiped Greek and Roman gods.  Paul equates turning away from the freedom that grace brings to returning to worship of statues and idols.  He makes returning to the Mosaic Law as the way of salvation tantamount to turning to Zeus for salvation.  Wow.  From a Pharisee of Pharisees, the Law equated to empty idol worship.  Paul says orthodox Jews are wasting their time.  After Jesus, the Law is nothing at all.  This is a huge statement, and I cannot imagine the anger it stirred up among the Jews of that time.  They would have hated him.  And I can't help but be reminded of Jesus saying that new wine just won't go into old wineskins.  The old wineskins not only won't hold the new wine, but they are useless for any other purpose also.  They should be discarded completely.  Paul is in sync with Jesus when he says this to the Galatians.

Paul asks how the Galatians, having experienced their true role as "grown up sons", inheritors of the gifts of the father, can now go back and put themselves under the tutelage of their old tutors who have nothing to teach them but the most elementary aspects of behavior.  They can only teach them the rudimentary instead of embracing their role as heirs to the father.  Adults don't do this!  They do not go back to being servants after the Father has declared them adult!  This is what the Judaizers are trying to tell them they need to do.  That they need to step away from their authority and responsibilities as adults, and return to being children, under the Law. This also denies the Spirit living within them and guiding them.  That they could even think this way makes Paul wonder if they were saved in the first place.  This bears on the "fall from grace" things we will see later, and the possibility that some/many/all of these weren't saved in the first place must be an option for Paul's motivation in saying some of the things he does.  His intent may be to take them back to the moment of their salvation, and the certainty of being indwelt by the Spirit as assurance of their salvation.  And if they don't have that....

Paul next reminds the Galatians of his time there at the first.  He reminds them how much they cherished and craved his preaching at that time, so much so that they made allowances for his "sickness" and worked around it.  (MSB note says possibly malaria, which would come and go.  
2021-2, These verses:
[Gal 4:13 ESV] You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first,
[Gal 4:14 ESV] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
MSB says it is likely that Paul had contracted malaria in the coastal lowlands of Pamphylia. Galatia was higher in elevation, cooler, and so better for one dealing with periodic fevers.  The only reason Paul had come to Galatia to start with was to deal with the malaria.  They treated him kindly, and worked around his condition.  Is this Paul's thorn in the flesh, or a whole different burden he had to bear?  I always thought the thorn had something to do with his speaking ability.  Maybe he stuttered, maybe he had a lisp...but if he was periodically unable to "appear" and defend the gospel, and so sometimes others prevailed by default, that might have been it too I suppose.  But also, Paul refers to this as an ailment, not a thorn.  I think it most likely that he had both malaria AND some other, more profound and constant hindrance.).  (2022 - Perhaps when they stoned him at...where ever that was...he got hit in the head and it affected his speaking?)

If they were so convinced of his intentions at that time, and loved him so much at that time, why would they think he is coming to them now with false, misleading, damning doctrine?  Why would he?  What could his motivation be?  What changed?  Paul ends this emotional appeal by baring his own emotions of deep concern, as for a child of his own.  He is worried about them as a woman in labor.  He is concerned that the "effort" will be in vain.  He had believed, after his first visit, that he had "children" there in Galatia, but now, as at the first, he is worried that nothing will come of it because of what the Judaizers are doing to his young converts.  This is the summation verse:
20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. [Gal 4:20 ESV]
I know this feeling.  I was raised in church, as were Paula and Martha.  Our kids were all raised in church - more or less, but mostly more.  And yet here we are, with only Mom, me, Paula, and Martha going to church.  All our kids have abandoned church, and our grand kids have barely been exposed to it.  How is it that what we did in love - not without mistakes I'll grant you, but certainly with love and the hope of eternity in heaven for our kids - now seems of no effect at all?  In Paul's own words in vs 11:
11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. [Gal 4:11 ESV], and again in vs 16:
16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? [Gal 4:16 ESV].

Perplexing is the right word.  And I remember well that I "perplexed" my own Dad for a lot of years.  

Paul now uses Hagar and Sarah as an allegory - his own words in the ESV.  Hagar, he says, represents the covenant of Sinai, the earthly Jerusalem.  Of Law.  She was a slave, and her son was a slave.  Her son was after the flesh, and not from God.  Paul says the current state of Judaism is slavery to the law.  The purpose of the Law was to condemn, the purpose of the sacrifices was to postpone the judgement for those condemned under the Law until Jesus could come and take that condemnation on himself.  Paul contrasts the earthly Jerusalem - and continuing Judaism - with the heavenly Jerusalem, which is about grace and not at all about law.

2021-2, This:
[Gal 4:30 ESV] But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Obviously quoting the OT.  This seems like a proof text for the end times treatment of Jews being different than the treatment of those in Christ.  Wedding guests and bride come to mind.  Surely what is supposed to be cast out is the Law, and the struggle for righteousness as a result of obedience to the law.  This was just a safety net until the fullness of time, when Christ arrived.  It was an appliance (perhaps even a crutch), allowing a semblance of natural motion, until such time as the plan was made whole in Christ.  Now that Christ has completed his work, the appliance may be discarded, set aside, no longer worn.  Why would you wear an artificial leg over a real leg?  THAT is the right question.  This is what trying to re-impose the Law (ritual, priesthood, sin offerings) on salvation in Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit in each individual is like.

2022 - Paul's arguments continue to be compelling.  Hagar and Ismael, the son of the flesh, were indeed cast out.  And Paul is calling Jewish Orthodoxy "the son of the flesh".  Ishmael was loved.  Abraham wanted to give him some of the inheritance, to keep him close, and so on.  Just as devout Jews of that time wanted to keep the Law they had grown up with and loved and to which they were devoted.  But there was a better.  The better came, in Christ, in the fullness of time, and it is time to move on from slavery and step into freedom.  To move on from childhood elementary primers and learning to read into adulthood, and communion with the Spirit, and learning to live righteously by faith, rather than having to be tutored and spanked by what is in writing.  Grown ups deal with the gray, through communion with the Spirit.  This is not about deciding whether murder is wrong, that lesson was learned under the Law.  It was one of those elementary lessons, just as homosexuality, immorality, and so on from 1 Cor 10 were elementary lessons.  Just because the Law is no more does not mean that things that were wrong under the Law are now right, nor do they need to be re-evaluated.  Why teach transient lessons to the children of the Master?  To those who will function AS Masters?  The Law taught correctly on the "big matters" and now the Spirit has come to help the Master run the household.  Still another lesson in what the Law is, and another lesson in how the moral teaching of the Law did NOT go away with the Law.  We get those, and we have the Spirit to rightly divide the less obvious matters.
Possible FB post, using Gal 4:30.

2023 - So this verse:  30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." [Gal 4:30 ESV].  Based on what has been said in context previous to this verse, we might read it as "the followers of the law shall not inherit with the followers of grace".  We can go a lot of places with this.  First, look at this:  20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year." [Gen 17:20-21 ESV].    
2023 And then this:
10 So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac." 11 And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. ... 13 And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring." [Gen 21:10-11, 13 ESV].  It was Sarah that Paul is quoting when he says the son of the slave won't be heir with Isaac.  But God goes on to say that Ishmael will also be a nation.  Paul makes Ishmael equivalent to those who follow the law instead of grace.  They too will be a "nation", just as will the children of promise.  TWO nations are promised.  From this, a Dispensationalist might well argue that these two nations will take different paths through history, through the end times, and might come into the promises through an entirely different route.  The children of promise by grace, and the children of the flesh by trial through fire, by surviving the final rather of God against them, by surviving the double punishment.
2023 - IF we say that there are no longer two nations, if we say that ALL the promises are now to accrue to the church, then what possible reason could there be, what possible justification could we have, for supporting Israel today - or indeed at any time since the first century A.D.?  Wouldn't we think of them instead as the children of Hagar, children of the flesh?  Why would we not leave them to fend for themselves?  We would have no reason at all for showing loyalty toward Israel, anymore than we have reason to show loyalty to Finland or Botswana, or any other nation.  Perhaps even less reason to show loyalty to them, in that they were offered salvation directly from God, and it was to them that the scriptures were given first, and they rejected them.  They arguably had the best opportunity of any people in the history of the planet to say yes, and yet they said no.  Why would not despise them???  For me, this is the ultimate refutation of the idea that Israel has been subsumed by the church.  No.  There are still two timeless.  What was promised to Israel is indeed promised through the flesh.  So the physical promises.  The land, the Millennial, the authority over the whole world with one of their own, of the tribe of Judah, on the throne.  The church is spiritual.  The church has the Holy Spirit indwelling, the promise of salvation from wrath, the rapture, and the role of bride of Christ.  There IS a difference.

Chapter 5
The first verse of 5 seems a better conclusion to the thoughts of 4.  It seems to be a summary statement:
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. [Gal 5:1 ESV]

This chapter begins the last of three major divisions in the MSB outline.  The rest is called "Practical: The Privileges of Justification".

Paul tells them now that if they accept the teaching of the Judaizers, and accept circumcision as a requirement, and the Mosaic Law as a requirement, then they must keep the whole law.  If they make one mistake, the law condemns them to death.  And they WILL make a mistake, inevitably.  This is a choice they make in what they believe.  They can depend on their own perfection in keeping the Law, and if successful, they will die un-condemned by the law, and so go to heaven.  OR, they can accept the finished work of Christ, who was condemned vicariously for all our sins, and be obliged to him for his benevolence toward us.  Either you accept the Law and "fall away" from grace, or you accept Christ's teaching, and "rise above" the requirements of the law.  In context this is a contrast of choices going forward.  It is not a statement that those who are deceived by the Judaizers even for a moment are doomed to hell in eternity.  That just isn't what Paul is talking about.  
Here is the introductory verse:
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [Gal 5:2 ESV]...and then this:
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. [Gal 5:4 ESV]
This is very strong language.  How to deal with this since it "doesn't say what we want it to say"?  We could say he was talking to the unconverted.  But that's not who he's been talking to before, and I see no indication that his intended audience has changed from those in the first four chapters.  He has previously worried that maybe they are not as "saved" as he thought they were when he was there.  If he is talking here to those, who embraced grace in the "heat of the moment", but were not truly saved, and they are now putting their hope of eternity in circumcision and keeping the law instead of in grace, then...what?  They "fall" from the higher way - from the heavenly Jerusalem about which he talked to them in the previous chapter, and tie themselves in bondage to the earthly, the lower, Jerusalem.  This is possible, because he most certainly did contrast Jerusalem above and Jerusalem below.  
Even looked at this way, the question remains.  He says "You are severed from Christ".  You can't be severed from if you were not connected to.  We could say Paul is using severe imagery because this error is so severe.  But I don't like resorting to such things.  I want to know what he really means.  Enough of my thinking, what does MSB say?
MSB takes the position that those who do this, who move the object of their faith from grace to law, were never saved in the first place.  MSB does not go into a long discussion about this.  MSB talks about what severed means and what fall means.  He says this is about those who were exposed to the gospel, who heard it and liked it, but who are now looking in a different direction, back to the law and bondage.  If they do this, and put their "true" faith in the law, then they will not again turn to Christ.  It is in that sense that they are severed.  
A difficult passage at best.  In verse 3, Paul does say "I testify again...", referring back to what went on in the first four chapters.  That incorporates the "labor in vain", the "anguish of childbirth", the heavenly and earthly Jerusalems.  Paul is reiterating what he's already said, he is NOT introducing a new doctrinal concept.  He is worried they were never saved, not that they were saved and are putting away their salvation.  That is how I see it today.

2023 - This verse needs to be included:
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [Gal 5:3 ESV].  Paul is saying that "including" the law as a requirement of the gospel cannot be done piecemeal.  The Law in internally insistent that it is an all or none approach.  I cannot be that the New Covenant is grace plus circumcision.  Circumcision is a small part of the law and if you take any part, you must take it all.  The Judaizers are teaching both a false gospel AND a false interpretation of the law.  And the purpose of the law was appeasement.  If you depend on the Law for appeasement, then you are "severed" from Christ, because he is about atonement!  Once for all stuff as contrasted with the repeated but temporary appeasements required over and over by the Law.  You can't leave those appeasements out and just do circumcision.  How could that possibly work!?  You have fallen away from your dependence on grace, and gone back to dependence on sacrificial appeasement.  This is the fall.  It is not about their eternal state, it is about their demonstration of their salvation.  Does it show by devotion to a ritualized sacrificial system, or does it show by love and good works?  Well which did Jesus teach?  That question at least, is pretty easy!

2022 - We might also see in this the difficulty of a life built entirely on faith.  As humans we are not very good at "believing in what we cannot see", and especially so when it is critical to our futures.  We have this built in compulsion - at least in this country - to "make it happen", to "take the bull by the horns", to "bring our A game".  All these expressions are about doing it ourselves, earning it, deserving it because we put in the effort...but faith is about counting all those things as worthless.  As ineffectual.  Faith requires that we submit to the efforts of another our future - our eternity.  We fall on our knees in abject helplessness because we can do nothing to earn or deserve salvation.  We want a gift, we want THE gift.  And we must "ask" someone else, for whom we have done nothing noteworthy, someone who owes us nothing, to "donate" it to us.  Our culture is not ok with that.  Maybe that is why the US is not in the book of Revelation.  Our national pride doomed us from the start.  We lasted as long as we were a "church going nation" and acknowledged that God was ultimately in charge, but as we have lost our sense of humility, our country has crumbled.  We seem to have been a 200 year "flash in the pan"..
Possible FB post using Gal. 5:4.

2023 - If  Paul has up to this point in the letter been speaking to those who were never saved - if we say that's what the letter is about - then what exactly was Paul's hope for the time he had invested there?  That just few were really saved, despite all the things he'd done there, despite miracles and deep teaching and the indwelling Holy Spirit that he holds up as EVIDENCE of true salvation? And his hope was that the rest would also be saved after he left through the testimony of those where were saved?  But now the Judaizers have come in and are doing an effective job of convincing those unsaved who are still attending that they must obey the law of Moses while perhaps reverencing Christ, but that their true path to salvation lies in their adherence to the law, and because of this, Paul is worried that all the "maybe later" souls will be lost to the Judaizers.  We would be saying that Paul's primary concern, and the audience to whom he writes, are the unsaved attenders of the Galatian church.  This does not seem likely.  Another possibility that just hit me is that it is the future of the Galatian church - the perpetuation of that church so that Paul can present her as a perfect bride on that day - that is Paul's concern.  In that case, he could be writing to the majority of already saved people that he left in that church in order to instruct them as to how the arguments and proposals of the Judaizers should be answered.  He does this to prevent the teachings of the Judaizers from "taking over" as the accepted gospel in that church going forward.  Paul knows that those who accept such a gospel will not be saved and that the long term result will be an end to this great church.  You cannot have a church with only unbelievers as members.  AND, if this is the case, then it would make sense that Paul would be setting up all these "difficult to explain" situations are NOT scriptural, do not have a place in the possibilities of the true gospel, and should be refuted by recalling this, that, and the other.  For instance, consider how to handle a person who has truly been saved but is persuaded to also keep the law.  What kind of a "state is that"?  Such a person is practicing the law though he has no need for the law.  What is the result?  Focus on the earthly, on the physical, and the NEGLECT of the spiritual state into which he was converted at salvation.  So a diminution of the "force" that drives the church forward in evangelism and charity doing the works of Jesus in the real world.  The saved don't become lost, but they "fall" from the higher spiritual calling of the New Covenant back into the physical requirements of the Law which has no provision for advancing the kingdom, but was only there in the first place to demonstrate that sin is inevitable in a physical sense, to foreshadow the coming of Christ, and the appease God until that time.  
2023 - Yes.  THIS makes sense as to Paul's audience and his motivation for writing not only to this church but to all those to whom he wrote.  The problems were not always the same, so the focus of each letter is different.  BUT, at this point, I think we can confidently say that Paul was always writing to the saved, and that his motivation was to preserved the church until Christ comes far more than to save a few people and then move on.  Paul wasn't trying to keep a single generation of sons and daughters of Christ intact, he was trying to save the church for future generations!!!  This longer view is why he can set up these impossible "states" that do not and cannot exist - like a person who believes in Christ but depends on Law for heaven, a person who has freedom in Christ but remains a slave to the law, which is clearly NOT a real state.  He does this to instruct the truly saved in the church that the teaching of the Judaizers REQUIRES such ridiculous states, and show the saved in the church how to scripturally and rationally show the impossibility of such states.  "Straw man" keeps coming into my mind, though that is not the proper term for this.  A straw man is an "invented" problem the other side has that can be easily torn down....but that in reality is not what the other side believes.  Instead, though I have no name for it, Paul is taking the teachings of the Judaizers to their natural conclusions, he is pointing out the resultant relationships between God and man  that arise from the full application of their teaching, and then showing that these cannot exist.  You cannot be a slave to one and free to another.  The only states allowed are slave and not slave.  
2023 - I think this understanding will make ALL of Paul's letters easier to understand, will make all his teachings easier to categorize, and give us a working model for how to bring harmony to his most controversial writings.

vs 6 is Paul's recommendation for which choice is best:
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. [Gal 5:6 ESV]

The next paragraph starts with this verse:
7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? [Gal 5:7 ESV]
...and ends with this verse:
12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! [Gal 5:12 ESV]

Paul is pulling no punches about what he thinks of the Judaizers.  He is leaving the Galatians no room to believe these false teachers have some good about them, and that they must be at least partly correct.  Paul wants them maimed, unacceptable, incomplete, and of no import.  He comes near hating them.  The "a little leaven" comment seems to imply that there are only a few, perhaps only one Judaizer that is leading them all astray.  Paul is asking them to narrow it down and identify the source of this teaching.  

Beginning in vs 13 Paul seems to be telling them not to use their freedom to enslave themselves again.  That might be what it means.  If so, it certainly contradicts the "fall from grace" mentioned previously.  Is Paul saying that while they are "free" to become slaves to the law if they want to do so, he strongly advises against it.  Because it precludes the blessings of the freedom that Christ died to obtain for us?  This does seem to make some sense.  He goes on then to encourage them to love one another.  Maybe this false teaching was splitting the church, and Paul is encouraging them to work it out, based on his teaching and not that of the false teachers, and to stay united and to love one another, as Jesus taught.  Error must be corrected in love, not in church splitting!

2021-2, Except, Paul is not saying they are free to go back to the Law, and discouraging that idea.  He is not talking about freedom from law, but about flesh.  This I guess was the dilemma.  How do you tell a people that once they are saved they can never be unsaved, and tell them that they don't need a lot of sacrifice and ritual and priestly confession, BUT, they are not free to practice immorality and fleshly things with abandon and not sweat it at all.  Freedom from the sacrificial and ritual law is not freedom from other things handed down by Moses.  There is a difference, as we saw back in 2Co.  You don't have to sacrifice, but you don't "get" to sleep with the neighbors wife - and then expect her husband not to be upset because you are free in Christ.  Knowing what is "gone" and what remains is not, to me, a super-simple little problem.  It was a big deal for them to know what was abrogated and what was not.  
I believe there are more than enough places where the Bible says "perseverance of the saints", and not nearly as many that imply falling from grace.  There's the whole word study on "fall" that says its distance but not full  separation.  But this says "severed from Christ".  This is indeed a hard passage.
Possible FB follow-up to Monday 11/21.  I like the wording here, and could "propose" that  whole three section - criminal penalties, dietary law, sacrificial law - view of the law to show what in fact was abrogated and what still stands.  Needs a verse though...
2023 - The Law was to inform Israel of their innate and irresistible tendency to sin, and to provide a way for appeasing God temporarily - until Christ came - and ATONED for those sins.  So anything the Law identified specifically AS sin is STILL sin.  Grace does not make those sins ok.  Grace makes further appeasement - and all the parts of the Law that are about how to appease God - totally unnecessary.  And to be complete, the dietary laws were to set Israel apart from other nations and maintain a theocratically based separation of the Yahweh worshipers from the polytheistic idol worshipers that existed ubiquitously at that time.  But also see para starting "MAYBE SO..." just below.

However, as we move on to vs 16, what Paul has in view seems less embracing the Law as the way of the flesh and more about the lusts of the flesh.  (2021 - I think this is what he is talking about.  Practical matters.  They are free of the law, but the last thing they want to do is behave as if the prohibitions of the law are meaningless.  It says "no adultery", "no murder", and so on.  Embracing grace instead of Law does not mean these prohibitions go away and adultery and murder are ok.  Not in the least does it mean that.  The Law is to be abandoned as the way of salvation, and grace embraced instead.  It is that aspect that he has been talking about.  But just in case the next false teachers who arrive preach "free love", Paul warns them.)  But MAYBE NOT...look at this verse coming right after the Spirit being against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit:
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. [Gal 5:18 ESV]
MAYBE SO...because beginning in vs 19, we have a long list of the works of the flesh, and the list is not about the requirements of the Law of Moses, but about lust and so on.
This would tie in with the teaching in James about how those who are saved will do good works out of thankfulness and gratitude and love.  They are not "compelled" by any creed or code or "tally sheet" to do these good works.  They will just be inclined to do them as true children of God.  Even the saved are tempted by the lusts of the flesh.  God arranged it so that the things the Spirit wants inside us are also strong desires, opposed to, in conflict with, what the flesh wants.  This is conscience.  We don't need the Law to tells us right from wrong anymore because that has been taken over - superseded in a better way - by the Spirit within us.

2021-2, Maybe this is why it is difficult.  The parts of the law that are no more are not really separable from the parts that remain by chapter and verse.  But if we let the Spirit bear witness with our conscience, we can know what God approves and what he does not.  Sanctification, if we study and work and pray, will win in the end and we will do the things we should and shun the things we should not.  There is still some work to it!  And this verse agrees with that:
[Gal 5:18 ESV] But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
You can only be loyal to one.  If led by the Spirit, stop looking to the intricate details of the leprosy laws for whether you're unclean or not.  If you are led by the law, you need a verse for every problem.  

2021-2, Vs 19 -21 make very clear what constitutes the things of the flesh.  Many specifics.  Theft is not here, murder is not here.  This may well have been "obvious".  Sex is here, but it is not the only thing.  Idolatry, sorcery, fits of anger, envy.  All these things are to "indulge" ourselves, to uncage our desires, ambitions, pride.  This is flesh.  And right after this list of what the flesh is about is the contrasting list of the fruits of the Spirit.  This is the context.  I wonder if more could be learned from the contrasts than from the items on the list themselves.  Sorcery is a pretty specific negative, but self-control...that's pretty broad, and speaks back to self-indulgence.  The "good" list seems to be about principles, the bad list about specific examples.  Maybe.  It would be worth a deeper look.

2023 - Verses 19-23 ought to be kept always together.  Instead, we only hear about the fruits of the Spirit.  But Paul's whole point here is that the Law prohibits specific behavior - physical, fleshly behavior.  That is all it does.  The Spirit that indwells doesn't do that but instead encourages the spiritual aspects of life and UNSPECIFIED good works.  The Law specifically says "DO NOT DO THIS".  The New Covenant says "Be lead by the Spirit".  There are no specifics that say do not "murder", but it says love your neighbor.  You don't murder those you love, so this covers it.  The NC does not say "Pray five times a day toward Jerusalem" and it does not say "Five Hail Mary's and two "Our Fathers".  It is not specific as to what we do, but we can see the results of "love your neighbor", because that shows up as the fruits of the spirit.  All we have to do is follow the Spirit inside us, and when we get this right, it shows up as fruit of the Spirit.  The results show.  The results of conformance with prohibitions is not observable.  The Law is not about what we see, but what we don't see.  Grace is about what we see.  Such a wonderful contrast between the Law and Grace, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone put it this way.

Chapter 6
As this chapter begins, we have to wonder if Paul's whole outline had a new Roman numeral starting at vs 5:16.  (It was at 5:1)  Right after that he addresses the desires of the flesh.  He lists them, and then he contrasts that list with the characteristics of those led by the Spirit.  Now he starts 6 with "bearing one another's burdens".  With helping each other to overcome, to repent of, lapses in living the Spiritual life, and to do so without getting too judgmental about it as we examine our own shortcomings to empathize with others' shortcomings.  We all have our own problems.

2022 - In vss 1-5, three commands are given.  Restore brothers "caught" in sin.  I don't know if that word caught means like "red handed" or means "trapped" in sin.  The definition is a bit complicated, but I can tell that it does not mean "trapped" in sin.  It can mean surprise or detect.  It is also aorist passive subjunctive.  Basically, that just means if anyone anywhere is ever "caught" in sin.  As general as the aorist passive subjunctive is, perhaps Paul also means "caught" to be sort of an open situation.  Caught in whatever way he might be caught - using all the multiple possibilities that word can imply.  People get caught in sin in an infinite number of ways.  Doesn't matter what happened.  The point here is that "we who are spiritual" should help them "escape" their sin, to repent, to move on from it, rather than be "stuck" in it.  Second, bear one another's burdens.  Is this about listening to the troubled, is it about taking food to the grieving and the sick and the infirm and the widows and widowers?  I get the sense, from the Greek word, that we are to "take the weight of it upon ourselves".  So take the load off of others, and deal with it ourselves.  Make some of their responsibility our responsibility.  Probably we would know better what to do if we had a closer relationship with our brothers and sisters in Christ.  You have to know what the load is before you can help carry it.  Preparing meals, babysitting, paying a bill for someone.  Third, be hard on yourself.  Set our goals high.  Deal with your own burdens.  In so doing, it will be easier on those who help you bear them, and you will be better able to handle whatever comes up.  Or maybe this is more about keeping what you do to yourself, so that you know you are doing these things, but don't depend on your neighbor to tell you how great a job you're doing.  Perhaps Paul is even saying we shouldn't tell anyone at all that we're doing these things.

2023 - This verse:
1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. [Gal 6:1 ESV].  To me, the transgression about which we are talking is not a "one time thing".  But I can't find anything in the grammar that says that.  The grammar would apply to being caught - as in "hand in the cookie jar".  That is probably the more correct way to look at it because "restore" is in the present active imperative.  It is a command to restore them as soon as they are "caught".  I guess we could be "caught" in something we've been doing a long time, but have not been previously caught.  Going to bars, looking at the wrong magazines, flirting with other women.  Being caught in the act on any of these could in fact just be the tip of the iceberg that is a long time habit of doing this.  I do not think Paul means there has to be a big "restorative" meeting if someone overhears a fellow church member cuss when he has a blowout.  But surely such a meeting might be helpful if that person is forever using that kind of language.  That's what's bothering me I guess.  I want there to be a "threshold" that triggers this imperative, so I can do the little sins without anyone interfering.  Hmmm...That might be a problem with my thinking all right...

2022 - Vss 6-10 are pretty generic also.  It is not clear to me exactly what is in view.  We are to do good, to everyone, as we have opportunity.  It is not just those who set themselves up as teachers who are to behave this way, but also those who are taught.  I think maybe this is the idea here...I am not really sure.  We aren't to do nice things for others just so we can get the credit for being good to others.  If we are doing it for our own good, we are seeking rewards in the flesh.  If we are sincere in doing good, our reward is spiritual.  This seems to be setting things up for vs 12 below.  In 12, Paul says the Judaizers are teaching for themselves, for their own worldly goals.  What they are doing is for the teachers, not in any sense for the taught.  Do not therefore listen to them.

This chapter starts with an appeal for individual holiness.  We are to keep away from sin, we are to "gently" admonish others who sin, but look first to our own problems before we jump on others.  

Paul apparently closes the letter in his own large handwriting.  Perhaps he didn't see well...At any rate, he now unmasks the motivation of the Judaizers with these verses:
12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. [Gal 6:12 ESV]
The "old school Jews" were still very powerful.  Being put out of the synagogue for following "the Way" was still a very real thing.  Your business would suffer, your children would suffer, your finances would suffer if you were put out.  These Judaizers were trying to ingratiate themselves with the "old school" by bringing these errant Jews (Christians) back to the Law.  Let them claim Christ if they want, as long as they still follow the tradition of the "old school".  By doing so, the Judaizers gained standing with the traditional power structure.  These were looking out for themselves only, with no care whatever for the souls of those they were teaching....and yet, they too believed they were helping.  Believing this made it ok to help themselves while they were at it.

2023 - I wonder where money was involved in all this.  Paul says the Judaizers ask for big paychecks, and they don't want to be persecuted for Christ.  They want to maintain a good working relationship with the old school, Christ rejecting Jews.  There is no "above the line" way to do both and still be a committed Christ follower.  When you can't find a spiritual motivation, look for a monetary one.  How did money flow from Christians persuaded to follow the law to the non-Christian synagogue Jews, and how did the false teachers facilitate that flow?  These were mostly Gentiles.  Did they have to sign up for classes at the synagogue so they could follow the law better?  Not much money in that.  But maybe as part of that, the Pharisees taught them about making a great show of the massive contributions to the temple you were making - as a Gentile trying to get right with the Law.  For now, that's the only way I can see to "follow the money".

2022 - One last thing...here is the closing verse:
18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen. [Gal 6:18 ESV].  This is the first case I have noticed where the word "adelphos" is used for brothers, and the ESV did not put in a footnote saying "Or brothers and sisters".  They left this one alone for some reason.  It is used as a noun, and is in the vocative plural masculine.  I don't believe I have seen that word "vocative" before.  The word appears to be spelled and used just like it is used everywhere else.  I would like to do a little study and see how often this vocative case shows up.  But adelphos is used 343 times in 317 verses in the NT.  The vocative case is "a direct address or exclamation.  In this verse, we also find the vocative:  16 "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. [Act 1:16 ESV].  There is also no footnote in 1:16.  HOWEVER, in vs 14, there is the usual footnote on "and his brothers".  The noun's case here is dative.  In vs 15, it is genitive, and there is no footnote.  I also saw a number of places where it was accusative, as in this verse:  2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, [Mat 1:2 ESV], which has no footnote.  Did Jacob have no sisters?  Why couldn't it mean both here?  So...based on this, I still say the ESV is putting this in much more for political reasons than for translation reasons.  I just still do not see any consistency in where the footnotes belong.  AT BEST, it is interpretation on the part of ESV, and not a strict translation...well...in the verse, they always use just the masculine form.  It is only in the footnotes that they bring sisters into it, and the footnote always says "OR" brothers and sisters, depending on context, so that you can decide for yourself.  But...wouldn't we do that anyway, even without the footnote?  Who would ever use the Bible to say that all these rules and regs apply only to the men and women can do as they please????  That would be ridiculous!