Implicatures: The Unsung Heroes of Good Exegesis

 I don't know if you ever watched The Fall Guy as a kid but it was one of my favorite shows. The theme song at the beginning of the show tells of how stuntmen in movies are the unsung heroes of the movies. They do all the cool stuff. If it were not for stuntmen, all of those action movies would never likely be made (all Tom Cruise action movies excepted of course). These men do behind the scenes the stuff that makes the magic happen. But they are largely unseen by the audience. Well, seen but unseen. And if one wanted to deny their existence, he or she could simply say, "That guy was never in the movie because I never saw him and you can't show me him in the movie." They would be wrong but difficult to prove wrong because their presence isn't explicitly made known. 

Implicatures in language function the same way. Scripture uses language to communicate not only in the explicit statements but also in implied statements/propositions that are assumed by what is explicitly stated in order to form an argument. 

For instance, Paul's argument in Galatians 3 is that Christ is the only offspring of Abraham that receives the promises of Abraham and that those who believe in Christ become offspring of Abraham "in" Him and by "putting Christ on." Therefore, the distinctions in individual identity that would exclude someone from being an heir of Abraham's promises no longer exist because all are "one in Christ." These are the explicit statements in Chapter 3. 

However, what is often missed are the implicatures. For instance, how is Christ the heir of Abraham? And how am I the heir of Abraham if I am made one with Christ? 

The first implicature is easy for most to get. Christ is the heir of Abraham because he is the only perfectly faithful Israelite who has ever lived. But not just an Israelite. He is of the line of Judah, so he is Jew of Jews. So Christ, Paul's argument implies, is the only heir of Abraham as a Jewish Israelite.

But the second implicature is often missed. This is that if a person is one with Christ, and Christ is a Jewish Israelite, then as His hand is a Jewish Israelite hand and His feet are Jewish Israelite feet, all that are one body with Him are Jewish Israelite. Hence, all in Christ, one with Him, have put Him on, are Jewish Israelites in Him, and thus, sons of Abraham in the same way, not in a different way, that He is.

That's Paul's argument. That's what is often missed. Hence, he ends the letter by calling the entire church "the Israel of God" because that is what they have become in Christ. 

But implicatures are often ignored or dismissed by those who would like to interpret texts to fit their theology instead. Like those who deny that stuntmen were in the movie, these people can simply say, "I don't see where Paul explicitly says any of this and so it's not there."

But implicatures are interesting parts of language. They actually are assumed by the author and he assumes his audience will also assume them. If I say, "I gave two dollars to my friend," this sentence assumes all sorts of implicatures that are not explicitly stated. I exist. I have at least two dollars. I have a friend. My friend received the two dollars. etc. etc. If I had to explicitly detail every implicature, language would be laborious. Instead, I assume you can get all of that by my explicit statement. 

And this is important to note. It isn't an eisegetical assumption. It is an exegetical one. Not all assumptions are eisegetical but you must show their necessity by the explicit statements in the text. 

What I find is that most cults and people with bad interpretations ignore and dismiss the necessary assumptions that the author intends that you make in order to substantiate his argument. To reject these is to reject the communicative process and to refuse, therefore, to partake generously in the language game of the author.

In other words, to ignore the implicatures is to leave the author's statements up for subjective interpretations that massacre his meaning and subject it to a possible replacement it with their own. 

When I see people who seem to lack reading comprehension skills it is often due to this inability to follow a logical argument through the implicatures, so this skill is definitely one that should be taught in exegesis courses but is, unfortunately, most often completely unidentified as a key contributor to understanding the text, and therefore, left out.

It's the unsung hero that would save the day from bad interpretation but is too often ignored because of its inconvenience to what are truly eisegetical assumptions that the poor exegete uses to change the text.

Is σκύβαλον a Curse Word?

A common misunderstanding of the word σκύβαλον is that it is a curse word Paul uses in Philippians 3:8. It is supposedly equivalent to our "sh" word or the lesser offensive but still crude "cr" word. Hence, many Christians feel vindicated in their belief that they are free to use curse words as Paul did. I will attempt to show here that this is completely false and that the word is never used as a curse word within Second Temple Jewish literature, which is Paul's linguistic context.

I chalk this one up to one of the evangelical myths of our time, where something gets repeated enough that everyone just believes it without ever studying the issue.

As an example of this one might quote BDAG, the standard lexicon for NT Greek.

σκύβαλον, ου, τό useless or undesirable material that is subject to disposal, refuse, garbage (in var. senses, ‘excrement, manure, garbage, kitchen scraps’: Plut. et al.; PSI 184, 7; PRyl 149, 22; PFay 119, 7; Sir 27:4; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 109; 139; Jos., Bell. 5, 571; SibOr 7, 58.—τὰ σκύβαλα specif. of human excrement: Artem. 1, 67 p. 61, 23; 2, 14 p. 108, 21; Jos., Bell. 5, 571 [cp. Epict., Fgm. Stob. 19 ἀποσκυβαλίζω].—MDibelius, Hdb. on Phil 3:8) πάντα ἡγεῖσθαι σκύβαλα consider everything garbage/crud Phil 3:8 (cp. AcPl Ha 2, 23; Spicq. s.v. “to convey the crudity of the Greek … : ‘It’s all crap’.”).—DELG. TW. (BDAG 932).

BDAG somewhat captures this but in quoting Spicq includes the unfortunate misperception that so many evangelicals have adopted, which is that the word refers to some sort of curse word. Spicq gives no evidence for this whatsoever. Instead, the word has no crude connotations in Greek usage, so even though Spicq might mean "useless" by his use of the "cr" word, it is still a false equivalent because σκύβαλον has no such crude element to it as the "cr" word has in many contexts. The word σκύβαλον simply refers to things that are not useful and one would have no issues saying it in mixed company. 

In Sacrifices, Philo uses the word is paralleled with φορῠτός, which is whatever is left over from the winnowing process, i.e., chaff blown in the wind.

But the first fruits are the holy motions of each in accordance with virtue; on which account they have been compared to a threshing-floor. As, therefore, on a threshing-floor there is wheat and barley, and as many more of such things as are capable of being separated by themselves, and husks and chaff, and whatever other refuse [φορῠτός] is dissipated and scattered in different directions, so too, with us, there are some things which are excellent and useful, and which afford real nourishment, by means of which a good life is brought to perfection; all which things we should attribute to God. But there are other things which are not divine, which we must leave like refuse [σκύβαλα] to the race of mankind; but from these some portions must be taken away, (Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995], 107–108).

In On Dreams (2.21-22), he uses the word similarly of what is discarded because it is seen as poor quality or non-nutritious.

But when I hear Jacob relating his dream I marvel at his having fancied that he was binding up the sheaves, and not reaping the corn; for the one is the task of the lower classes and of servants, but the other is the occupation of the employers, and of men more skilled in agriculture. For to be able to distinguish what is necessary from what is mischievous [σκύβαλον], and what is nutritious from what is not so, and what is genuine from what is spurious, and useful fruit from a worthless root, not only in reference to those things which the land bears, but also in those which the intellect bears, is the work of most perfect virtue. (Ibid., 389).

Likewise, as he does in Sacrifices, in On the Virtues, he uses the word to contrast the chaff with wheat.

For it is he who, before the sowing was performed, cut the furrows through the deep-soiled plain, and prepared the field for the operations of heaven and for the labours of the husbandman; for the latter, so that he might sow it at a seasonable time, and for the other, that the deep bosom of the earth might receive its bounty displayed in gentle showers, and in consequence might treasure up rich nutriment for the seed and dispense it to it gradually until it should swell into the full ear and bring its annual fruit to perfection. And, after the corn is brought to perfection, then again the ox is necessary for another service, namely, for the purification of the sheaves, and the separation of the chaff [σκυβάλων] from the genuine useful grain. (Ibid., 654).

He uses it also in Sacrifices (138-139) to refer to what is discarded in burnt offering sacrifices.

Therefore the lawgiver judging a place which was capable of receiving both these opposite qualities, namely, what is honourable, and what is disgraceful, and which was adapted to each, and distributed equal honour to both, to be quite a much impure as holy, removed it from the altar of God. For what is disgraceful is profane, and what is profane is by all means unholy; and this is why the dominant part is kept away from sacrifices, but if it is subjected to examination, then, when all its parts have been purified, it will be consecrated as a burnt offering, free from all stain, and from all pollution. For this is the law respecting whole burnt offerings, that with the exception of the refuse [σκυβάλων, i.e., everything that belongs to the category of things to be discarded] of the food, and of the skin which are tokens of the weakness of the body and not of wickedness, nothing else should be left to the creature, but that all the other parts which exhibit the soul perfect in all its parts, should be presented as a whole burnt offering to God. (Ibid., 111).

In the law, this refers to anything discarded in a burnt sacrifice, including the feathers and crop of a bird (Lev 1:16). 

Finally, in On Providence, he uses it to refer to debris and burning garbage heaps in which critters, like reptiles, live. 

. . . for it is seen that these creatures flee out of the cities into the fields and into desert places, to avoid man as their master. Not but what, if this is true, there is a certain sense and principle in it; for rubbish [φορῠτός]is heaped up in recesses: and quantities of sweepings [σκυβάλων--Note: Yonge's translation here is a bit odd. The Greek only contains one phrase but Yonge seems to translate two trying to explain σκυβάλων as both sweepings and refuse], and refuse, and such things, are what venomous reptiles love to lurk in, besides the fact that their smell has an attractive power over them. (Ibid., 755).

The one use in the LXX is found in Sirach 27:4, where it refers to the extra/remaining particles that fall out of a sieve when shaken. 

When a sieve is shaken, the useless material appears; so do a person’s faults when he speaks. 

The word appears only twice in the Pseudepigrapha, both in the Sibylline Oracles (7.55-59 and 11.185).

Prophesy, Colophon, a great terrible fire hangs over you. Ill-wedded Thessaly, the earth will no longer look upon you, even as ashes, but you will be sailing alone, a refugee from the mainland. Thus, O devastated one, you will be the sorrowful leftovers of war, O one who falls to dogs and rivers and swords.

You will be the mournful leftovers of a terrifying war among all the tribes.

In Wars of the Jews 5.571, Josephus uses it only one time to refer to the unused food particles left over in both human and animal dung that the Jews resorted to eating during the starvation of the Roman siege on Jerusalem.

 . . . as also that a medimnus of wheat was sold for a talent; and that when, a while afterward, it was not possible to gather herbs, by reason the city was all walled about, some persons were driven to that terrible distress as to search the common sewers and old dung hills [ὄνθος] of cattle, and to eat the dung [σκύβαλον] which they got there; and what they of old could not endure so much as to see they now used for food. (Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987], 726).

Beside the one NT use of the word in Philippians 3:8, the quotations above make up the only uses of the word in Second Temple Jewish literature. The word clearly refers to that which is left over/useless/unnecessary/unusable. There is absolutely no crude connotation made by the word. It is simply not a curse word.

"The Israel of God" in the Context of Paul's Argument in Galatians

 I recently heard the argument that Paul is really arguing in Galatians that the true Jew is one who is both ethnically and religiously Jewish, and that his idea of the true Jew does not include Gentiles as a part of Israel. Let's map Paul's argument through Galatians and see if that claim is true.

Paul begins and ends the letter as he does other letters he writes by greeting the multiple Galatian churches he is addressing and declaring grace/mercy and peace upon it (this will become significant later).

ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ⸂ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου⸃ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:2-3)

To the churches of Galatia, grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ ⸀στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. (6:16)

And to those who as far as they have conformed to this principle, peace is to be upon them and mercy and upon the Israel of God.

This creates an inclusio for the entire book, and as such, one can see just by this that Paul identifies the church as Israel.

But let's look at the rest of the argument in between these statements that get him there.

Paul argues that the gospel that is being presented by certain people to the Galatian church is another gospel (1:6-9).

Paul explains that his gospel is not something that would have come from his understanding of Judaism, but rather had to be given via revelation and confirmed by the other apostles and the Jerusalem council (1:10-2:10).

In 2:3-4, Paul begins to reveal what the problem is with the gospel that is being peddled in Galatia by certain "false brothers." The problem is that some Jews, who Paul refers to here as the circumcised or those who belong to the pro-circumcision party, are insisting that Gentiles also become circumcised. 

Paul continues to reveal the problem is even larger than that by saying that Peter and Barnabas had even fallen prey to the thinking of these particular Jewish teachers so that they did not eat with those who were Gentiles anymore, which indicates that these Jewish teachers were advocating for a position that all Christians, Jew or Gentile, must observe the ritual customs of circumcision, cleanliness laws, and perhaps, even food laws since the Jews refused to eat with the Gentiles either because they were considered unclean just from being defiled as uncircumcised or the food they were eating was considered unclean, thus making those who ate it unclean (2:11-13)

In 2:14, Paul gives us a key verse that tells us what the issue primarily is in relation to the gospel.

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, 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?” 

So what is not consistent with the gospel is to insist that a Gentile who has believed in Christ must now "live like a Jew," even though, because of the gospel, Jews like Peter are now allowed to "live like a Gentile." In other words, Gentiles are not circumcised, have any sort of food laws, cleanliness laws, etc. that they must observe. Paul (and Peter) understood that the gospel freed them from having to observe these ritual laws. Why it frees them will be made clear after this so put a pin in this. It is simply important to note that the gospel Paul is preaching frees all who believe from having to observe these external identity markers that indicated one was a recipient of God's promises to Israel via Abraham.

Paul argues in vv. 15-16 that even though both he and Peter are Jews by birth, performing acts of the Mosaic law code doesn't make them right before God. Instead, one must be made right by faith in Christ. 

He anticipates a counter argument to this in vv. 17-21 when he argues that faith in Christ does not make someone a sinner because the person who does so dies to sin and loves Christ who died for him. 

This argument implies that the issue is not simply one of sanctification but rather being made right with God both in what might be artificial distinctions of justification and sanctification in Paul's argument. He is describing how one is made right, not only in one's initial justification but also in terms of sanctification. What this means is that the Mosaic law does not produce righteousness for either one. This argument has a direct application against the Jewish teachers who are teaching that the rituals in the Mosaic law code either make someone right with God or sanctify one before God. Instead, Paul argues that if this were true, Christ died for nothing. No one is made right, either in justification or sanctification, by observing the Mosaic law code.

In 3:1-6, Paul furthers his argument by asking the Galatians (both Jew and Gentile) whether the Spirit/spirit was given to them by doing something in the flesh or by faith, with the assumed answer being "by faith." And that this is the same faith that Abraham had to be the recipient of God's original promise to inherit the world in the first place (see Rom 4:13). Paul sets up here the means by which someone partakes of the life of God so that his following argument, which will be worldview-altering for the Jews listening to it, can be understood.

Paul now makes a key statement in v. 7:

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham

This verse is absolutely essential to understanding Paul's argument in Galatians because it explains now why the Jews themselves no longer have to obey the rituals of the Mosaic law code, i.e., it's not what makes them Israelites/Jews because it's not what makes them sons of Abraham. 

It's an important caveat here to mention that gentilics in Scripture are written one of two ways. One way is simply to have a yod ending on a name, but the more common way of doing it is to simply put the term "sons of" in construct to a name. This indicates that the group that is related to a person are all considered sons of that person and make up the nation that came from that person. Hence, "sons of Abraham" technically means "Abrahamites." But ethnic Jews view themselves as "Abrahamites" because they are ethnically "Israelites/Jacobites," i.e., "sons of Jacob" who is a "son of Abraham." Since Jacob receives the promise of Abraham as Abraham's son/grandson, Israelites who are sons of Jacob receive Abraham's promise. 

Paul now counters this by saying, the promise is not received by flesh as the Spirit/life of God was not given by the flesh, but by faith. In other words, Paul now argues that no one is a true son of Abraham and recipient of the Abrahamic promise because they are physically a descendent of Abraham. Instead, since it must be by faith that one becomes a son of Abraham, then both Jew and Gentile have become sons of Abraham through it, which is why Paul ends this part of his argument in Chapter 3 by saying there is now no Jew or Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free but all are one in Christ (v. 28). They have all become heirs of the promise of the world to come because they have all become true Israel by faith in Jesus Christ (vv. 8-9).

Before that statement, however, in vv. 10-14, he continues to argue that faith in Christ makes both Jew or Gentile a true son of Abraham because the law cannot do this. Instead, rather than receiving the promise by making people Israelites, which is what the Judaizers are attempting to do by circumcising Gentiles, following the law brings a curse and proves one not to be a true Israelite. 

Paul argues that the Mosaic law code is not an addition of requirements to be an Israelite but rather was added as an aid to teach the sons of Abraham about sin and the need to have faith in Christ in order to receive the Abrahamic promise and inherit the world to come (vv. 15-24).

However, the stunning argument is found in v. 16 and followed up in vv. 25-29:

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 . . . But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

So Paul now argues that the reason why all who have faith are sons of Abraham is because they are "in" Christ Jesus who is the offspring/descendent of Abraham to whom the promise refers. Hence, Christ alone will receive the promise given to Abraham as Christ alone is the one seed/offspring of Abraham who inherits the promise. As such, those who are "in" Christ have that promise because those who are "in" Christ are one with Christ. 

This is why I stress the preposition "in" here. To be "in" Christ is to be unified with Him, one with Him, His body. This is why Paul earlier argued that he was crucified with Christ. This is only possible if Paul was either literally on the cross with Christ, which of course makes no sense, or if Paul has been made one with Christ so that when Christ died, Paul who was in Christ died with Him. This is why the doctrine of federal headship/unification is so important. To be "in" Christ is to be everything that the man Christ Jesus is. If He is crucified, so are those in Him. If He is exalted, so are those in Him. If He inherits the world, so will those in Him. But how do they receive Abraham's promise? Because if Christ is the one true son of Abraham, the one true Israelite, then all who are "in" Him are the one true son of Abraham, the one true Israelite. In fact, Paul's argument has implications that if all that is true of the man Christ Jesus is true of all who are in Him, and Jesus is a son of Abraham through Israel through Judah, then all who are in Him by faith are sons of Abraham through Israel through Judah, and therefore, Israelites and Judahites/Jews. Hence, there is no need to become an Israelite or Jewish through circumcision or any of the markers that identify one as an Israelite in the Mosaic law code because all, Jew or Gentile, who are in Christ through faith have already become so. Likewise, there is no reason for Jews, like Paul or Peter, to perform these rituals anymore either because they are confirmed as true Israelites/Jews by faith in Christ, and not by the Mosaic law code. Hence, this is why there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. Everyone is Christ who is in Christ for the purposes of identifying whether they receive the promise given to Abraham and his single descendent. It is not saying that there is no such thing as a male or female or slave or free man or ethnic Jew or ethnic Gentile. It is saying that in terms of what God considers the offspring of Abraham, those who have been made right with God, for purposes of inheriting the promise of Abraham, inheritance of the world to come, everyone who is in and of Christ is considered that one true offspring/descendent of Abraham.

This is the core of Paul's argument in the Epistle.

But Paul goes beyond just being a son of Abraham and now argues in 4:1-12, that those who in Christ have now been adopted into becoming sons of God, which is why those in Christ have received His Spirit/the Spirit of God/the life of God. The law was a manager, a tutor, for those who, like little children who had not yet come into their maturity and are equal to slaves, needed to be trained what holiness and goodness looks like. But now that God has sent Christ into the world to redeem those under the law, those who have faith in Christ are given His Spirit/the life of God and now have come into their sonship, having no need of a law that restricts them as though they were still slaves, and in fact, is weak and worthless in terms of producing any righteous character of God in an individual (v. 9). He ends by lamenting that they are under a mindset of slavery when they observe "days and months and seasons and years," which contextually is clearly a reference to the Mosaic laws concerning sabbath, holy days, and the larger Jewish calendar (v. 10). It is clear that Paul is arguing that to do so means that the Gentile Galatians will not be saved since the law cannot save, and observing it means that the gospel of Jesus Christ is no longer being believed by them. It is also clear that he is primarily speaking to Gentiles here, not Jews as some dispensationalists would argue, since he makes the statement that he desires for them to become like him since he has become like one of them (v. 12), implying, again, contextually, that he no longer observes the Mosaic holy days for purposes of righteousness anymore. 

Paul appeals to them further in vv. 13-20 by communicating that they had once taken care of him without any judgment toward him when he was chronically ill among them. They loved him but now they are treating him like an enemy because he has come up against these false brethren who have bewitched them from following the gospel presented above. 

From this appeal, he now argues against those brothers who are being persuaded to be under the law in vv. 21-31 that there are two "Jerusalems" represented allegorically by Hagar and Sarah, one in slavery and one free. The one in slavery is the physical Jerusalem made up of ethnic Jews who are under the law. Those are the children of slave woman Hagar. The other Jerusalem is above (as a side note, this means there is a heavenly Jerusalem where Christ sits on David's throne). The Jerusalem above is not under the law and is the mother of all of those who have faith in Christ (v. 26). These are the children of Sarah, the free woman, and thus, they are free from the slavery/restrictions of the law. The former will not inherit the promise. The latter are like Isaac and will inherit it. But also like in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, the one persecuted the other. So those who are sons of Sarah, i.e., Isaac, the son of the promise, will be persecuted by the sons of Hagar, ethnic Jews under the law who think the Mosaic law code must be the means of inheriting God's promise of righteousness and the world to come.

Paul then argues in 5:1-6 that if Christ set us free, He did so that we might live as free people rather than people who put themselves back under the Mosaic law code by being circumcised and observing the food laws and old covenant calendar (the three things he has alluded to thus far in the epistle but obviously represent the whole of the law code as he has stated). He further notes that anyone who attempts to be made an "Israelite" this way in order to obtain the promise of righteousness and the world to come will be obligated to keep the whole law, which, as he argued in Chapter 3, no one is able to do and instead will receive the curses as a violator of the law. Not only this, however, but Paul adds here now that one who does this has rejected the path God has set before him in order to obtain righteousness and the promise, and thus, he has been severed from Christ. He does not get to be under the law and be in Christ at the same time. Paul makes it clear here that it is one or the other. Either one is made righteous through faith in Christ or one is made righteous by the works of the law. It is either the free woman or the slave woman, not both. It is the Jerusalem below or the Jerusalem above, not both. It is grace or law, not both. They cannot be combined.

Instead, the argues that it is by the Spirit/the life of God that they have received by faith that causes them to love that looks to be made fully righteous as an expectation of the future. Whereas the law attempts to be made righteous now through external acts, the full transformation of the Spirit is a hope that has not fully occurred as of yet. Those of the circumcision attempt to fill in that gap by these externals, but this is to deny the work of Christ through faith that does not come through these externals but is an inward work of the Spirit that works over the lifetime of an individual and perhaps beyond. Hence, Paul states that those who are of the Spirit are eagerly awaiting to be made righteous (v. 5). Therefore, he concludes that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (v. 6).

In vv. 7-12, Paul makes known that these false brethren who are confusing them are cursed and should be avoided. Their arguments don't come from Christ but the devil (v. 8). They are leaven that leavens the whole lump of dough, which is often an analogy for sin and corruption (v. 9). They will bear the penalty, which is often a reference to the death penalty, and likely hell in this case (v. 10), which corresponds to the anathema and label of false brothers he gives in the earlier sections of the epistle. They are not preaching what Paul preaches since if he still preached that one must obey the law then he wouldn't be offending the Jews and persecuted by the them so much (v. 11). He ends by saying that these false teachers should go all the way and cut off their testicles (v. 12), indicating the opposite of circumcision which was originally a dedication of one's fertility to the Lord. Since these people advocating for a Judaic-Christianity are not really the people of God they should have the opposite sign of circumcision.

Paul now turns in 5:13-25 to argue that the freedom given to those who have faith in Christ has entered them into a new life of the Spirit who gives a love to them that will transcend the good found in the Mosaic law (vv. 22-23). Hence, the love produced by the Spirit that has been given through faith will look for opportunities to serve one another since the whole law is summarized in the one law of love, "You will love your neighbor as yourself" (v. 14). The opposite of this work of the Spirit, and likely presence of the legalistic spirit of slavery, is biting and devouring one another, i.e., judging and slandering one another (v. 15). This is the work of the law among those who have not received the Spirit. Paul warns that if this is the way things are, this lack of love that evidences a lack of the Spirit will eventually consume the community (by this, he does not merely mean it will lead to the community falling apart but that they will be damned--something he will make explicitly clear later).

He argues in vv. 16-6:6 that those who live by the Spirit and not the law, do not evidence a life of the flesh's desires, since the Spirit is given to hinder those desires. The work, therefore, is internal and works outward to a life of love and service to one another. Those under the law, however, evidence a life that is not transformed internally and therefore produces works of a spiritless/untransformed life. So living in the life of God granted to those in Christ through faith brings love (v. 22) and all of the goodness therein (vv. 22-23), but living in the flesh, a life not controlled by the Spirit, brings the spirit of jealousy and competition (v. 25) that breeds all of the evil therein (vv. 19-21). Instead of this spirit of jealousy and competition that bites and devours one another, Paul instructs the true brethren to look upon one another with love and restore anyone who is in sin with humility, not thinking of himself as better than the other, knowing that he can fall as well, and bear one another's hardships together, since this is to fulfill the law of Christ, which is the rule of love (6:1-5). Finally, in this section he argues that love looks like sharing all good things with those who have taught them. It looks to taking care of the needs of the teachers who have led them into these truths as opposed to the false teachers who have led them away from them (v. 6). As these teachers have saved their lives with the truth, so the brethren will love and save the lives of their teachers with their material wealth.

In continuation of the preceding argument, in vv. 7-10, Paul warns that what one sows is what one will reap. If a life of love and service to one another as described above, one will reap eternal life. The one who sows a life to the flesh, i.e., his own desires, self-inflation, self-achievements, etc., he will reap death, i.e., be damned. Instead, those who sow to the Spirit by cultivating a faith in Christ that produces love and service to others should persevere in that knowing that it will reap an eternal benefit in the future (v. 9). Hence, those who are of the Spirit should continue to do good to everyone without exception within the household of God, implying both by this and his argument throughout the book that divisions based upon ethnicity or ritual practice have been abolished (v. 10).

Paul then finishes his argument by charging those who preach circumcision from a pragmatic standpoint as doing so in order to be free of the persecution from Jews that would come when the cross is preached. He states that they don't even follow the law either, but would make Gentiles circumcise themselves so that the Jews would be satisfied and look respectfully upon their religion (vv. 11-13). Instead, Paul states that it should be far from him that he would ever do such a thing since our pride is in the cross and not in the world. As he declares, it is the cross "by which I have been crucified to the world and the world to me" (v. 14). Hence, he implies that Christians, Jew or Gentile, should not care about pleasing the world but only Christ by lifting up the gospel as their sole object of pride and hope.

And now we come to the final statement of this entire argument. 

καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (6:15-16)

It is the new creation of an individual in Christ Jesus, not their original ethnic identity that has made them heirs of the promise given to Abraham and given them a new nature of love that fulfills all true righteousness. As such, they are true Israel, the true sons of God, who will inherit the world to come. So it does not matter if one is circumcised or uncircumcised since this does not make him a Jew or Gentile. What makes him a Jew or Gentile, the people of God versus the pagans, is his being a new creation in Christ through faith or someone in the flesh (in this case someone under the Mosaic law as this is how the flesh is manifest in a Jewish religious context). 

Contrary to the claim that the καὶ shows that the Israel of God is talking only to Jews, something that would ignore the entire argument that Paul just made, the καὶ simply differentiates the individuals in Galatia who would listen to Paul and the entire people of God, i.e., church, everywhere. Paul's letters are filled with endings that are individual/specific and then more general as well. There is no argument from grammar here. In fact, the καὶ can even be taken as epexegetical as it often is in the NT, where it further names or describes the preceding group. This would make it read, "And to the extent that there are those who walk according to this principle, peace and mercy be upon them, that is, upon the Israel of God." So the καὶ can be taken in either way, and it does not violate the argument. What would violate the argument is to take it as a separate group within the church that Paul just argued should characterize the whole church.

What would make no sense is for Paul to suddenly pivot and now argue that the Israel of God is ethnic Israel who believes but excludes Gentiles, even though Paul just made the argument that they are Israel through Jesus the seed of Abraham. In fact, they are ethnic Israel through Jesus, since to be in Him is to be one with Him and one body with Him. He is ethnic Israel. Ergo, whoever is in Him is ethnic Israel. But beyond this, all who are in Him are sons of the mother Jerusalem above, which also makes them Israel. Furthermore, the Israelites are the sons of God as opposed to the wicked nations, but all in Christ have become sons of God through Him, and are thus, true Israel. They therefore receive the blessings and peace and mercy of Israel, the Israel not of the world, but of God.

Paul then ends how he begins. He greets and blesses the whole church and ends by blessing the whole church, and the Israel of God is the church.