To what does “against such things there is no law” refer?

Explanation:

Paul explains that the Spirit and the flesh are opposed (Galatians 5:17). He then lists an assortment of actions that are conducted by those who live by the flesh. These actions include impurity, idolatry, enmity, strife, anger, and jealousy (Galatians 5:19–21). It is important to note that after listing the works of the flesh, Paul says that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (Galatians 5:22).⁴ Why won’t they inherit the kingdom of heaven? Because these actions are contrary to the law of God, so that the law of God condemns those who live by the flesh. In other words, there is a law against such actions, that is, God’s law. Once we see that the reason Paul says that no one who practices the works of the flesh will inherit the kingdom of God is because the law of God condemns such actions, we can see what he means that there is no law against the work of the Spirit.

Paul goes on to list the work of the Spirit, which he has already explained is opposed to the works of the flesh. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, and so on (Galatians 5:22). Paul concludes that against these things there is no law. What Paul means is that there is a law against the works of the flesh, namely, God’s law, and those who do the works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God. On the other hand, there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit. Therefore, those who live by the Spirit are not condemned by any (God’s) law.

Counterargument:

This interpretation depends on the notion that those who live by the flesh do not inherit the kingdom of God because they are condemned by the law. In other words, it takes it that to not inherit the kingdom of God and law condemnation are equivalent. Paul never states that not inheriting the kingdom of God is due to law condemnation, so we should not equate these concepts.

Response to counterargument:

Paul is writing a letter, not a systematic theology, so he does not need to spell out his definitions with the precision that this counterargument requires. Rather, we can deduce from Paul’s wider train of thought that those who do not inherit the kingdom, do not inherit it because they are condemned by the law. For example, in Galatians 3:19, Paul says that the law was added because of transgression, and he goes on to explain that the law does not make anyone righteous (Galatians 3:21). He also explains in Galatians 3:10 that unless one abides by the whole law, one is cursed. In other words, the transgressions that required the law to be enacted are the Israelites’ living by the flesh. The law could not stop the Israelites from living by flesh, but because the law made the Israelites’ transgressions known, they were cursed. Those who are cursed cannot enter the kingdom of God. On the other hand, those who live by the Spirit are not cursed because they are not condemned by the law. Thus, they can enter the kingdom of God.

Explanation:

Paul lists the actions of one who lives by the Spirit and then says there is no law against these things. We can understand what Paul means by looking at the way he characterizes the law in 1 Timothy 1:9.⁵ There he writes that the law is given not for the just, but for the disobedient, ungodly, unholy, and profane. In other words, there is no law against the fruit of the Spirit, just as there is no law given for the just. Those who live by the Spirit (as well as those who are just) do not need any law because they fulfill the law by their actions (Galatians 5:14). On the other hand, those who are disobedient, ungodly, or who live by the flesh need the law to show them that their actions are contrary to God’s will.

Thus, it is consistent with Paul’s thinking in other letters that when he says, Against such things there is no law, he means that there is no law to condemn the fruit of the Spirit.

Counterargument:

While it might be that Paul discusses the law in another letter, this does not mean that we can use those letters to understand Galatians 5:23. Rather, we want to understand the verse in the immediate context. When we do, we find that it is not easy to see what Paul means when he says that against such things there is no law.⁶ For one, it is not clear whether the phrase such things is masculine or neuter in the Greek. If the phrase is masculine, then we should translate Galatians 5:23 as against such people there is no law.⁷ In fact, we find the same phrase in Aristotle’s Politics, and there the phrase is translated as masculine.⁸ Maybe Paul has Aristotle’s philosophy in mind, and he is saying that there is no law against people who live virtuously. Another option is that Paul pokes fun at the Judaizers. They want to uphold the law, so Paul offers the list of Spirit virtues and says, Find a law for these.⁹ In any case, the ambiguity of the phrase means that we cannot determine what Paul means.

Response to counterargument:

There are several problems with this counterargument. First, Paul is not ambiguous when he says that against such things there is no law. Rather, he lists a set of virtues and then states that there is no law against them. It is hard to see what else Paul could mean except that there is no law to condemn the virtues listed. Second, we cannot take such things as masculine because the phrase is used to refer to the list of the fruit of the Spirit. This fruit is not people but abstract qualities, which are referred to with the neuter. Finally, we are perfectly within our right as exegetes to look to Paul’s other writings to clarify or confirm an interpretation. In this case, Paul is clear enough in Galatians 5:23 so that we do not need other writers to clarify his meaning. Still, it is helpful to see that Paul characterizes the fruit of the Spirit and the laws in a similar manner in another letter, because it lends even more weight to the already clear interpretation.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be, as Paul’s point seems clear enough. There is no law against the works of the Spirit because the law derives from God, and the Spirit is God.

Explanation:

It is not obvious what Paul means when he says, Against such things there is no law (referring to the fruit of the Spirit). When we think about the overall context of the situation Paul addresses in Galatia, we find our answer. The Judaizers take an approach to mission where they promote the law as a way to be in relationship with God. Essentially, the Judaizers insist that the fruit of the Spirit is impossible outside the law.¹⁴ Paul disapproves of this approach, not because he is completely opposed to the law, but because he is opposed to enforcing the law on the Gentiles in Galatia who can live righteously through the Spirit.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it misses Paul’s larger point. Paul addresses not only the situation in Galatia but more broadly the fact that with the advent of Christ, God relates to his people in an entirely new way. In other words, Paul’s point is not to refute the exclusivity of the law, but to refute the law in its entirety as a means of justification before God. We can deduce this from Galatians 2:16 where Paul says that no one is justified by the works of the law but by Jesus Christ. Then in Galatians 3:10 he says that those under the law are under a curse, and that the law was only in place until faith in Christ was revealed (Galatians 3:23). In other words, it is not that the law and the Spirit are both means of producing spiritual fruit, but that the law has to do with making known the sins of the flesh. The Spirit, on the other hand, produces fruit against which there is no law.

Explanation:

When Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, his point is that the law is not necessary for producing spiritual fruit. In other words, the Gentiles, who are not Jewish and therefore do not have the law, do not need the law to live virtuous lives. Rather, the Gentiles can live virtuous lives through the Spirit. Since Paul’s meaning is that one does not need the law to produce spiritual fruit, that he uses the preposition against in Galatians 5:23 is awkward.¹⁵ It would have been more clear if Paul wrote that to produce such things no law is required. In any case, we live with the awkwardness.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it begs the question against a meaning that takes the preposition in a natural sense. In other words, we should not decide on Paul’s meaning and then suggest that the way he phrases things is awkward. Rather, we should let Paul speak for himself. In the case of Galatians 5:23, Paul says, Against [κατὰ] such things there is no law. When the preposition κατά is used with the genitive, we can take it to mean against, as in, there is no law opposed to the fruit of the Spirit. It is difficult to see how Paul could be any clearer. Paul has listed an assortment of actions that there are laws against. These include idolatry, fornication, and enmity. The law of God is against these practices. Next, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit, including love, joy, peace, and patience. Against these actions, Paul says, there is no law.

The problem with this view is that it goes against the plain reading of the text. As interpreters we want an interpretation that fits the immediate and broader context. This view does not suit either. It does not do justice to Paul’s broader point or the construction of the grammar.