YOU WOULD NOT DO WHAT YOU WANT:

A READING OF GALATIANS 5:17d

Abstract: A long controversy concerning Galatians 5:17d involves the reference of

“ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε,” that is, whether it refers to physical desire, spiritual desire, or both. This paper

argues that the context of Galatians indicates that the reference of ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε is a desire of the

flesh because this understanding is in line with the theme of Paul’s writing to the Galatians; he is

exhorting them not to be agitated to be circumcised. Other views do not take into account this

theme and are therefore problematic, despite their obvious merits. I will also address some

challenges to my view to show why it is more reasonable.

Keywords: Circumcision, Galatians, Flesh Desire, Paul

In Galatians 5:16–21 Paul discusses the fight between the Spirit and the flesh so as to

encourage his audience to pursue the appropriate things followers of Jesus are supposed to do. A

difficulty raised by this discussion is how to read Paul’s saying in 5.17d, “ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν

θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε.” The main controversy here involves the reference of “ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε,” and

basically three views are proposed regarding this issue: (1) it refers merely to the desire of the

Spirit, (2) it refers merely to the desire of the flesh, and (3) it refers to desires of both the Spirit

and the flesh. In this paper I argue that the second view is preferable because it is in line with the

theme of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians; that is, he is exhorting them not to be agitated to accept

circumcision as a sign of being Christians. I first point out that the other two views, despite their
obvious merits, do not take into account this theme and are therefore problematic. Then with the

second view, I explain why it comports with the theme and context of Paul’s letter to his

audience and discuss the main challenges this view may face.

Two minor issues need to be addressed first: the limit of the passage relevant to current

discussion and some grammatical debates concerning the meaning of 5:17d. With regard to the

first issue, some scholars take Galatians 5:16–26 as a united pericope due to the connection

between 5:16–21 and 5:22–26,1 whereas others separate 5:16–18 and 5:19–24.2 I limit the

discussion in this paper to 5:16–21 for two reasons. First, passage 5:22–26 is talking about the

evidence and function of the Spirit, but 5:16–21 concerns the fight between the Spirit and the

flesh as well as the desires of the flesh. While the discussion in 5:22–26 may help to explain the

topic of 5:16–21, these two passages can be read separately without causing any

misunderstanding. Second, and more important, the meaning of 5:17d, the main topic of

discussion, depends more on the context of 5:16–22 than on that of 5:22–26. It is therefore

inappropriate either to unite 5:16–21 with 5:22–26 or divide 5:16–21.With the unfolding of my

discussion, this second point will become clear.

The grammatical debates involve the translation of three Greek phases: οὐ μὴ in 5:16 and

ἵνα and ἃ ἐὰν in 5:17. Because οὐ μὴ is used with aorist subjunctive τελέσητε, it may mean

1
Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 389–407; Frank J. Matera, Galatians (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical
Press, 1992), 198–212; James D.G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993),
294–315, Dunn takes 5: 16–24 together as a pericope; Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: a Commentary (Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 332–368, Boer has 5:13–24 as a united pericope.
2
George S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (New York: Harper and Bros, 1934), 165–177.

1
negative assertion or negative commandment. The majority of scholars accept the former

meaning and translate “οὐ μὴ . . . τελέσητεas” as “would not/will not gratify,”3 but some English

versions of the Bible accept the latter and translate it as “do not gratify.”4 Another Greek word

ἵνα may also be read in two ways, either as telic or causal, and thus be translated either as “in

order to” or “so that,” which are accepted by different scholars. Finally, although ἃ ἐὰν seems to

mean “whatever,” some scholars point out that in Paul it means “what.”

These debates are relevant because they may affect our reading of 5:17d. For instance,

John M.G. Barclay asks “why ‘whatever you want’ should be taken as ‘what the flesh desires’.”5

As I will show below, however, a more important question to ask is about the relationship

between 5:16–21 and the context of the whole letter. To answer this question is significantly

helpful in our understanding of 5:17d and will help us to solve the grammatical debates.

Nevertheless, most scholars ignore the issue of context when discussing how to read 5:17d.

As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the first view on the meaning of 5:17d holds

that “what you want” in 5:17d means the desire of the Spirit. Accordingly, the focus of 5:17 is

the hostility of the flesh to the Spirit; the flesh is fighting against the Spirit and frustrating what

the spiritual Christians want to do. This view is attributed to Martin Luther and John Calvin and

is said to be based on the assumption “that it would be uncharacteristic of Paul to identify sinful

3
Boer, Galatians: a Commentary, 351; Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 165; Dunn, The Epistle to the
Galatians, 294; Matera, Galatians, 198 (Matera’s translation is “there is not,” also negative assertion); Witherington, Grace in
Galatia, 389.
4
See RSV and NRSV. However, Dunn points out specifically that “to take the clause as imperative, as RSV/NRSV, would
be an unusual but possible rendering.” Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, 294, note 1.
5
John M.G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1988), 114.

2
desires with the fundamental aspirations of Christian believers.”6 In addition, Romans 7:15 is

usually cited to support this view because “what I want” therein “clearly refers to righteous

aspiration, not sinful ones.”7 A revised version of such a view takes 5:17 b and c as parentheses

and reads the whole sentence as, “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit (and the

Spirit what is contrary to the flesh for they are in conflict with each other) in order that you

might not do what you want.”8

Scholars have pointed out that there are some significant differences between Galatians

5:17 and Romans 7:15 despite their similar structure and expression. For instance, George S.

Duncan says, “In the Romans passage Paul is dealing purely with human psychology . . . There is

no reference in that passage to ‘the Spirit.’ Here, on the other hand, the power of the Spirit is the

dominant idea.”9 Although Duncan’s comment makes sense, the stronger argument for the first

view comes from its assumption mentioned above; it is uncharacteristic of Paul to attribute sinful

desires to Christian believers. Put in the words of another scholar, “It would be rather strange

that what the Galatian Christians want is always evil and wrong.”10 Thus, the main question

regarding the first view is whether it is reasonable to identify any sinful desire with the aspiration

of the Galatians. To answer this question, we need to take into account the context of the whole

letter, especially the reason for Paul to write and his purpose in writing. Only given this context

6
Ronald Lutjens, “‘You Do Not Do What You Want:’ What Does Galatians 5:17 Really Mean?” Presbyterion 16/2(1990),
103-117(106).
7
Ibid.
8
Lutjens, “You Do Not Do What You Want,” 115; also see Jean-Noël Aletti, “Paul’s Exhortation in Gal 5.16–25: From the
Apostle’s techniques to His Theology,” Biblica 94.3(2013), 395–414, Aletti is in support of Leujens’s reading.
9
Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 166–167.
10
Jan Lambrecht, “The Right Things You Want to Do: A Note on Galatians 5.17d,” Biblica, 79(1998), 515–524 (519).

3
may we continue to ask, “Was Paul writing to persuade the Galatians not to do some sinful

things they wanted to do, or was he writing to encourage them to do any good thing they were

hesitating to do?” Unfortunately, both the proponents and opponents of the first view do not pay

attention to the context of Paul’s writing.

A similar problem occurs when scholars advocate the third view on reading 5:17d,

according to which “what you want” refers to both spiritual desire and sinful desire. Such a view

may take two forms depending on how one understands the result or purpose of the fight

between the Spirit and the flesh. One form of this view holds that the mutual opposition between

the Spirit and the flesh leads to a stalemate between the two, as a result of which the Galatians

were not able to do what they wanted. Some scholars think this view has a problem and seek to

explain Paul’s confidence in the power of the Spirit, which is expressed in 5:16, “Walk in the

Spirit and you would not gratify the desire of the flesh.”11 As mentioned earlier, however, this

translation of 5:16 reads οὐ μὴ as a negative assertion rather than a negative command. If we

read οὐ μὴ as a negative command, we get “walk in the Spirit and do not gratify the desire of the

flesh.” This reading makes sense of the view just mentioned because this view implies a

reasonable worry of Paul; if the Galatians obey the desire of the flesh, they will fall into a

stalemate between the Spirit and the flesh. Because of this, a better way to evaluate this form of

the third view is to discuss whether the context of Paul’s letter shows that the Galatians were

encountering the problem of a stalemate between the Spirit and the flesh.

Another form of the third view is from Barclay, who argues that the warfare between the

11
Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 114; Matera, Galatians, 207.

4
Spirit and the flesh would prevent the Galatians from being left in “a structureless existence

‘doing whatever they want’.”12 Thus, “Paul is assuring the Galatians that they are not in the

dangerous position of libertinism.”13 This view seems to make sense, especially given Paul’s

exhortation in 5:13 that the Galatians should not use their freedom as an opportunity for self-

indulgence, which sounds like a warning concerning libertinism. In addition, Paul’s list of evil

desires in 5:19 does look like a demonstration of the consequence of libertinism. It is important

to note, however, that in the first four chapters and the last chapter of Galatians there seems to be

no evidence that Paul is concerned with the issue of libertinism. It seems too sudden that the

topic of libertinism just jumps in without any warning. Again, the context for Paul to write this

letter needs to be taken into account to see whether we have a reason to take libertinism as Paul’s

concern.

II

The second view regarding 5:17d says that “what you want” refers to the desire of the

flesh, a view distinctively expressed by Duncan and Ben Witherington III. According to Duncan,

“By ‘doing as you please’ Paul means ‘acting as you would act if you considered merely the

dictates of the flesh.’ Such freedom of action is debarred for you if you live in the Spirit.” 14

Duncan’s argument is largely based on a refutation of other alternatives. On the one hand, as

quoted earlier, he emphasizes the difference between the Galatians and Romans; this difference

12
Barclay, Obeying the Truth, 115
13
Matera, Galatians, 207.
14
Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, 168.

5
makes the view that “what you want” refers to Spiritual desire implausible.15 On the other hand,

he rejects the view that in 5:17 Paul is talking about the stalemate between the Spirit and the

flesh because “if Paul had meant to depict flesh and Spirit as waging an indecisive battle in the

soul, he must surely . . . have gone on to say something about the final issue.”16

Duncan’s argument has two flaws even though it makes a lot of sense. First, as

mentioned, the view that “what you want” refers to Spiritual desire does not merely rely on

Romans but also on Paul’s theology in general. Second, his argument against the view that the

topic of 5:17 might be the danger of libertinism is too simple. He highlights that “the emphatic

note in the new appeal” in 5:16 is “the Spirit”17 and that “Paul is writing to Christians, i.e. to men

who have received the Spirit of God.”18 Then he concludes, “There is therefore no danger of their

Christian liberty degenerating into libertinism if they lead the life of the Spirit.”19 However, it

seems reasonable to assume Paul’s idea is this: if the Galatians did not lead the life of the Spirit,

they would fall into libertinism, even though they had received the Spirit of God. This

assumption preserves Duncan’s insistence that Paul’s emphasis here is on the Spirit, but it opens

a different possibility for Paul to make such an emphasis. As a result, the view that Paul’s worry

here is libertinism of the Galatians is not completely excluded by Duncan’s argument. The

strongest argument for Duncan’s view must come from the context of the whole letter, but

Duncan does not explore it when discussing the meaning of 5:17d. As I discuss below, this

15
Ibid., 167.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 165.
18
Ibid., 166.
19
Ibid., 166, the emphasis is original.

6
context does show that the Galatians had a dangerous desire of the flesh, and Paul was writing to

deal with this issue.

Compared to Duncan, Witherington pays more attention to the context of the whole letter in

his discussion of the current passage. In his critique of Barclay, Witherington points out that

Barclay’s view “assumes the Galatians were really in danger of being libertines, when in fact the

whole letter suggests just the opposite. Paul feared they were in danger of submitting to the

Mosaic Law, which is hardly the act of a libertine!”20 Witherington continues to explain Paul’s

mention of the law in 5:18 and says, “Now if we ask which work of the Law could most aptly be

called a word of the flesh, surely that act of circumcision is the one.”21 Witherington is quite right

here to invoke the Mosaic Law and especially the issue of circumcision to support his reading of

5:16–18. However, his conclusion that “‘what you want’ refers to these sinful desires or

inclinations” sounds confusing. Does the context of the whole letter indicate that the Galatians

had some sinful desires other than that of circumcision? Again, the context is important, and it is

time to turn to it.

From Paul’s repeated negative comments on the situation in Galatia, we are able to

discern a serious problem happened there that caused Paul to write this letter to exhort the

Galatians. At the very beginning of the letter, for instance, Paul said, “I am amazed that so

quickly you are deserting the one who called you in grace of Christ to another gospel” (1:6).

After a two-chapter description of his personal experience, Paul lamented, “Oh foolish Galatians,

who bewitched you?” (3:1). It seems obvious that some people in Galatia were agitating the
20
Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 394–95.
21
Ibid., 396.

7
Christians to accept certain ideas concerning their faith, which was contrary to the gospel they

had received from Paul.

While it is hard to figure out the identity of those agitators and the exact contents of their

teaching, scholars believe that the issue here involves circumcision. As Frank J. Matera puts

forward, “There is a general agreement among commentators that Paul is responding to a group

of teachers or missionaries who are urging the Galatians to be circumcised.”22 Similarly,

Witherington holds, “It seems reasonable and probable that the agitators in Galatia . . . wanted

the Galatians to be circumcised and follow at least some of the Law.”23 More important,

according to Barclay’s research on mirror reading, it is virtually certain that Paul’s opponents

“wanted the Galatians to be circumcised and to observe at least some of the rest of the law,” 24

whereas it is incredible that “they were libertines or played on the Galatians’ ‘Hellenistic

libertine aspirations’.”25

If circumcision was Paul’s concern, then it is important to note that after his brief and

vague denial of the significance of circumcision in 2:3, Paul did not make any comment on this

issue until chapter 5. It is in 5:6 that Paul gave his clear position on the issue of circumcision,

“For in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision can do anything, but faith working

through love can.” And almost the same idea is repeated in 6:15: “For neither circumcision nor

circumcision matters, but a new creation.” Thus, Matera is insightful that “Gal. 5.1–6.17 forms

22
Matera, Galatians, 1.
23
Witherington, Grace in Galatia, 25.
24
John M.G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT, 31(1987), 73–93(88).
25
Ibid., 89.

8
the culmination of Paul’s argument to the Galatians, the point he has intended to make from the

beginning of the letter that the Galatians must not submit to circumcision.” 26 Matera’s

observation is supported by Jean-Noël Aletti, who argues that regarding the problem at Galatia

“Paul does not give an immediate response by declaring loudly and clearly his rejection of

circumcision but first makes a long detour in order to show that his answer comes from the

gospel. ”27

Given the main purpose for Paul to write the letter and the function of the last two

chapters in realizing this purpose, it is reasonable to connect Paul’s discussion in passage 5:1621

to his argument against circumcision, the topic of the whole letter. Paul’s charge against the

Galatians, such as 1:6 and 3:1 quoted above, indicates that the Galatians were attracted to the

idea of circumcision; probably they had decided to accept the suggestion of being circumcised.

In other words, the Galatians did have a desire of the flesh; they were thinking of being

circumcised as some people agitated them to do. Therefore, it is very natural to read “what you

want” in 5:17d as the Galatians’ desire of circumcision, a desire of the flesh. Seen from the

context of the whole letter, Paul’s concern in 5:16–21 is circumcision rather than any other sin

committed by the Galatians, such as libertinism, or any other problem they were facing, such as

the stalemate of the Spirit and the flesh. This is the strongest argument for the view that “what

you want” in 5:17d refers to the desire of the flesh.

A potential difficulty for this view is to explain the grammatical relationship between

5:17c, “for these are opposed to each other,” and 5:17d. As Lutjens points out, if we read 5:17 c
26
Frank J. Matera, “The Culmination of Paul’s Argument to the Galatians: Gal. 5:1–6:17,” JSNT, 32(1988), 79–91(79–80).
27
Aletti, “Paul’s Exhortation in Gal 5.16–25,” 395.

9
and 5:17d together as it is natural to do, we get, “for these are opposed to each other, in order

that/so that you may not do what you want.” According to this reading, it seems that “these” is

the subject of 5:17d, and therefore “what you want” in 5:17d should refer to the desire of

“these,” the Spirit and the flesh. Lutjens’s way to solve this problem is to take 5:17b and c as

parenthesis and connect 5:17a with 15:17d directly. In this way, the subject of 5:17d becomes the

flesh and “what you want” refers to the desire of the Spirit. As a result, we get the whole

sentence of 5:17 as: “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit (and the Spirit what is

contrary to the flesh for they are in conflict with each other) in order that you might not do what

you want.”28 Because I have argued that it is more reasonable to read “what you want” as the

desire of the flesh, I do not think Lutjens’s reconstruction of 5:17 makes sense. However, his

argument may help us to solve the difficulty we are now discussing.

Inspired by Lutjens, we can take 5:17c as parenthetic and therefore connect 5:17b with

5:17d. As a result, we get “and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh (for these are

opposed to each other), in order that/so that you would not do what you want.” According to this

reading, the parenthesis (5:17c) explains why what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh, and

5:17d demonstrates the purpose or the result of the Spirit’s war against the flesh. Furthermore, I

suggest translating δὲ in 5:17b as “but” rather than “and” for there is a change of focus in 5:17b.

In 5:17a Paul was talking about the desire of the flesh, and in 5:17b the focus becomes the desire

of the Spirit. If we read “what you want” in 5:17d as both the desire of the Spirit and of the flesh,

then it is natural to read δὲ in 5:17b as “and” because this reading makes both the Spirit and the

28
Lutjens, “You Do Not Do What You Want,” 115.

10
flesh the focus. However, because “what you want” in 5:17d refers to the desire of the flesh, it

seems more reasonable to assume that in 5:17b Paul changed the focus from the flesh to the

Spirit. Therefore, we get the whole sentence of 5:17 as, “For what the flesh desires is opposed to

the Spirit, but what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh (for these are opposed to each other),

in order that/so that you would not do what you want.”29

According to this reading, it does not matter whether we read 5:16 as, “Live by the spirit,

and you would not gratify the desires of the flesh,” or, “Live by the spirit and do not gratify the

desires of the flesh.” If we read 5:16 as the former, then the meaning of 5:17 is “for even though

what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh.”

The focus here is the function of the Spirit; it can check the desires of the flesh. The whole

sentence of 5:17 is used to explain the saying of 5:16. If we read 5:16 as the latter, then 5:17a is

explaining 5:16b; that is, the reason not to gratify the desires of the flesh is that what the flesh

desires is opposed to the Spirit. Then 5:17 b changes the focus from the flesh to the Spirit, and its

meaning is “even so, what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh.” The focus here is still the

function of the Spirit but is expressed in a different way. Therefore, the way we read οὐ μὴ in

5:16 will not affect my reconstructions of 5:17.

Another problem to address involves the reading of ἃ ἐὰν. Grammatically it is reasonable

to translate this expression as “whatever” and therefore to read 5:17d as “in order that/so that you

may not do whatever you want.”30 As mentioned earlier, Barclay maintains that this reading

29
This reading is close to Duncan’s, even though Duncan uses dash rather than parentheses: “and the passion of the Spirit
against the flesh—the two are at issue, so that you are not free do to as you please,” Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians,
165.
30
Matera, Galatians, 198.

11
needs to explain “why ‘whatever you want’ should be taken as ‘what the flesh desires’.”

Barclay’s point has to do with the tension between a specific reference of “what the flesh

desires” and a universal reference of “whatever you want.” Duncan renders ἃ ἐὰν as “what”

instead of “whatever” and has 5:17d as “so that you are not free to do as you please”; in this way

he avoids the problem raised by Barclay. However, Barclay’s study indicates that the tension

between “what the flesh desires” and “whatever you want” may not exist.

In his research on mirror reading, Barclay points out that Galatians “is no calm and

rational conversation . . . but a fierce piece polemic in which Paul feels his whole identity and

mission are threatened and therefore responds with all the rhetorical and theological powers at

his command.”31 Because of this, in Galatians we hear Paul not “just ‘talking’ but ‘shouting,’

letting fly with abusive remarks about the Galatians . . . and the opponents.”32 If Barclay is right,

then “whatever you want” does not have to imply a universal reference but is Paul’s “shouting”

about a special fleshly desire, circumcision. In the words of Barclay, this is Paul’s response to

the teaching of his opponents with a rhetorical power. For the same reason, we do not have to

read the list of evils in 5:19–21 as Paul’s worry that the Galatians might desire to do all those

things. It is Paul’s shouting that if the Galatians desire to be circumcised they will fall into the

bondage of the flesh. This reading is also supported by the context.

If we turn back to the whole letter, we will find that Paul was using the ideas of freedom and

bondage to explain the harm of circumcision. In his greeting, Paul pointed out that Jesus Christ

“gave himself for our sins in order that he may deliver us from the present evil age” (1:4). When
31
Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter,” 75.
32
Ibid.

12
talking about the example of Titus regarding the issue of circumcision, Paul said that those

agitators “slipped in to spy on our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that they will

make us slaves” (2:4). Then in chapter 4, Paul appealed to the example of Abraham and his two

sons, saying that Abraham’s slave wife Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem, and free wife

Sarah corresponds to the Jerusalem above. He concluded, “we are not children of the maid-slave

but of the free woman. Christ set us free in freedom. Therefore, stand firm and not subject to

yoke of slavery again.” (4:31–5:1). Obviously, circumcision is a form of slavery or bondage in

Paul. The list of evils in 5:19–21 shows us different forms of familiar bondage. Paul was not

indicating that the Galatians are libertines, but that circumcision is a kind of bondage as all those

evils are. Therefore, Paul cried out at the beginning of chapter 5, “If you may be circumcised

Christ will benefit you nothing” (5:2). Christ would benefit the Galatians nothing because they

were accepting bondage and giving up the freedom they received from Jesus Christ.

III

The context of Galatians indicates that in the passage of 5:16–21 Paul is still talking

about the issue of circumcision and that the reference of “what you want” in 5:17d is to

circumcision. The main concern of the whole letter is circumcision, even though Paul did not

address this issue directly until the last two chapters. It is especially important to note that there

was not a problem of libertinism in Galatia, and Paul was not blaming the Galatians because of

this. All in all, if we take into account the context of the whole letter, we will not think “what

you want” in 5:17d may refer to spiritual desire or both the desires of the spirit and the flesh. It

refers to a desire of the flesh, namely, circumcision.

13