Galatians 4:1–16 — Greek Exegesis

Paul opens chapter 4 by extending the παιδαγωγός analogy of 3:23-25 into a new but related illustration from Roman inheritance law. The key legal term is νήπιος — not simply "young child" but specifically a legal minor, one who has not yet come of age to exercise full control over his inheritance. In Roman law, a minor heir could not manage his own estate; guardians and trustees administered it on his behalf.

The concessive participle κύριος πάντων ὤν ("although being lord of all") is the theological punchline: the heir legally owns everything but practically controls nothing. His legal status and his experiential condition are radically different. Paul will apply this to Israel under the law: they were heirs of the promise but lived under the law's custodial arrangement as if slaves, even though the full inheritance was already theirs in principle.

The verb διαφέρει ("differs from") with a genitive of comparison (δούλου, "from a slave") — the heir, during minority, is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a household slave. Both are under the authority of the estate's managers; both lack autonomous self-direction. The experiential equivalence despite legal superiority is the point of the analogy.

Paul's legal terminology is precise. He distinguishes two types of administrators: ἐπίτροποι (guardians — responsible for the person of the minor) and οἰκονόμοι (stewards/managers — responsible for the estate and property). In Roman legal practice, both roles were common in wealthy households when a paterfamilias died leaving a minor heir.

The phrase ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός ("until the date set by the father") is legally specific. Προθεσμία is a technical legal term for a predetermined deadline or appointed day — the date fixed in advance by the testator father at which the heir would come into full possession of his inheritance. In Roman law, this was typically set either at a specific age (often 14 for boys) or at a date specified in the will.

Theologically, this will become "the fullness of time" (v.4) — God the Father is the one who set the appointed date for the heir's coming of age. The entire period of the law was under divine pre-arrangement, not open-ended. The Mosaic covenant was the trusteeship, not the inheritance itself.

Paul applies the legal analogy directly: "so also we" — the first-person plural includes Paul (Jewish) and by extension the Galatians (Gentile), suggesting both groups were under a form of pre-Christ bondage, though the content of that bondage differed.

The phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ("the elemental principles of the world") is one of the most debated expressions in Paul. Στοιχεῖα can mean: (a) the basic physical elements (earth, water, fire, air) of ancient cosmology; (b) elementary teachings or rudimentary principles (cf. Heb 5:12); (c) spirit-powers or cosmic forces that governed the ages (angelic/demonic rulers of the present age); or (d) the basic religio-moral ordinances of pre-Christian religion. Paul uses the term again in v.9 in connection with the Galatians' former paganism and potential return to Torah, suggesting a functional parallel between Jewish Torah observance and Gentile paganism — both are "elementary" compared to the fullness of Christ.

The periphrastic construction ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι (imperfect of εἰμί + perfect passive participle of δουλόω) emphasizes a past state of completed enslavement: "we were in a condition of having been enslaved." The perfect participle stresses the settled, entrenched nature of the bondage; the imperfect auxiliary stresses its duration. This was no momentary captivity but a deeply embedded condition of servitude.

This verse is one of the most theologically dense in Paul's letters — a compressed Christology, soteriology, and missiology in a single sentence. The temporal contrast with v.3 is explicit: "when we were children" (v.3) // "when the fullness of time came" (v.4). God's redemptive act is precisely timed to the eschatological moment he himself set (cf. προθεσμία, v.2).

τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ("the fullness of time") — πλήρωμα denotes completion, full measure. The appointed period of minority/guardianship (vv.1-2) has run its course; the date the Father set has arrived. History is not accident but the unfolding of a divinely timed plan.

The verb ἐξαπέστειλεν is compounded: ἐκ + ἀπό + στέλλω — "sent out from [himself]." The double prefix intensifies the sending. The Son is not created for this mission but sent from God — implying pre-existence. This is one of Paul's clearest affirmations of the Son's pre-existent divine status (cf. Phil 2:6-7; 2 Cor 8:9).

The two aorist participles are the theological heart of Incarnation: γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός ("born of a woman") — full, genuine humanity, including the normal biological process of birth. γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον ("born under law") — full solidarity with Israel under the Mosaic covenant, with all its obligations and, crucially, all its curse-potential (cf. 3:13). The Son entered the precise legal situation from which he would redeem others.

As in 3:13-14, Paul structures the purpose of the Incarnation/redemption with a double ἵνα: the first clause names the redemptive act; the second names its benefit for believers. The parallel with 3:13-14 is deliberate: Christ became a curse (3:13) / born under law (4:4) → ἵνα those under the curse/law might be redeemed → ἵνα we might receive the Spirit/adoption.

The verb ἐξαγοράσῃ ("might redeem") echoes 3:13 exactly — the commercial-legal term for buying someone out of slavery. Here the object is τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ("those under law") — specifically those who were under the Mosaic law's custodial jurisdiction, i.e., Jews. But since Gentiles were under the στοιχεῖα (v.3), the redemption encompasses all humanity.

υἱοθεσία ("adoption") is a legal term from Roman adoptive law — the formal, legally recognized transfer of a person into the status of a son with full rights of inheritance. Paul uses it in 5 Pauline texts (Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5; here). The verb ἀπολάβωμεν ("we might receive back") is particularly striking — the prefix ἀπο- suggests receiving back what was previously owed or belonging. Believers receive adoption as a restoration of a status humanity was meant to have before the fall — or as the full realization of Israel's potential as God's son (cf. Exod 4:22).

This verse is a remarkable Trinitarian statement embedded in a soteriological argument. God the Father sends the Spirit of his Son into the hearts of believers — Father, Son, and Spirit each present in a single act. The same verb ἐξαπέστειλεν governs both the sending of the Son (v.4) and the sending of the Spirit (v.6) — God's two sendings are theologically parallel and complementary.

The phrase τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ("the Spirit of his Son") is unique in Paul — elsewhere he uses "Spirit of God" or "Holy Spirit." Here the Spirit's identity is specifically Christological: the Spirit mediates the Son's own relationship with the Father into the believer's experience. The Spirit who cries "Abba" is the Spirit through whom the Son himself addressed the Father (cf. Mark 14:36).

The participle κρᾶζον is present tense and agrees with πνεῦμα (neuter) — "crying out." The verb κράζω suggests an urgent, spontaneous, full-throated cry — not a quiet whisper but an enthusiastic acclamation. The cry Ἀββά, ὁ πατήρ is bilingual — Aramaic followed immediately by Greek translation — preserving the actual word Jesus used in Gethsemane (Mark 14:36) and suggesting an early liturgical formula in the church's prayer life. The Spirit enables believers to address God with the same intimate familiarity that characterized Jesus' own relationship with his Father. This is the heartbeat of adoption: the adopted son shares the Son's own access to the Father.

The inferential ὥστε ("so then") draws the conclusion of the entire argument from 3:29 to 4:6. The shift to the singular εἶ ("you are" — 2nd person singular) is striking and deliberate: Paul has been using plurals throughout; now he addresses each Galatian individually and personally. The theological inheritance is not merely communal — it belongs to each believer personally.

The sharp antithesis οὐκέτι … δοῦλος ἀλλὰ υἱός ("no longer a slave but a son") recalls the contrast of the entire passage: the minor heir was practically indistinguishable from a slave (v.1). But adoption has changed everything. The legal status — and therefore the experiential reality — is now fundamentally different.

The conditional εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος is a logical enthymeme (a deductive argument with a suppressed premise): if son → then heir. The premise is Roman inheritance law: sons inherit. The qualifier διὰ θεοῦ ("through God") places the entire inheritance on divine initiative — it is not earned or merited but granted by God's own action.

Paul now turns from the doctrinal argument (vv.1-7) to the pastoral application (vv.8-16), addressing the Galatians' specific history. The temporal marker τότε μέν ("formerly, on the one hand") signals a before/after contrast that will be completed in v.9 ("but now").

The participial phrase οὐκ εἰδότες θεόν ("not knowing God") uses the perfect participle of οἶδα — a verb of settled, personal knowledge. Their pre-Christian state was characterized by the absence of genuine knowledge of the true God. The anarthrous θεόν is qualitative — "God" as such, the real and living God.

The phrase τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς ("those that by nature are not gods") is a devastating dismissal of pagan deities. Paul does not deny that spiritual powers existed behind idols (cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6; 10:20) but denies their divine status: φύσει ("by nature") — in their very being, ontologically — they are not gods. This echoes OT polemic (Isa 37:19; Jer 2:11; 5:7; 16:20). The Galatians' former slavery was real bondage, but to non-entities — rulers of the present age that, however much spiritual reality they possessed, were not genuinely divine.

The temporal shift νῦν δέ ("but now") completes the before/after contrast begun in v.8. What follows is one of Paul's most pastorally anguished moments in the letter.

The self-correction μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ ("but rather, having been known by God") is theologically precise. Paul begins to say "you came to know God" but immediately corrects himself: more fundamentally, God knew them. The passive γνωσθέντες places divine initiative at the heart of their conversion. This echoes Paul's own self-understanding (1 Cor 13:12; Gal 1:15-16) and OT election language (Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2). Their knowledge of God was grounded in and preceded by God's knowing of them — they did not discover God; God claimed them.

The rhetorical question πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε ("how are you turning back?") is charged with incredulity. The present tense captures a process already underway. The destination of this turning is the ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα — the elemental principles now described with two withering adjectives: "weak" (they have no power to save or transform) and "beggarly/destitute" (πτωχά — like a pauper, they offer nothing of real worth). After the riches of sonship and the Spirit, the law's elementary regulations are spiritual poverty.

Crucially, Paul equates the Galatians' potential adoption of Torah observance with a return to their former pagan slavery under the στοιχεῖα. This is shocking: he places Jewish Torah and Gentile paganism in the same functional category as pre-Christ religious systems. Both are "elemental" compared to the fullness of Christ. Both represent bondage rather than the freedom of sons.

The double adverb πάλιν ἄνωθεν ("again, all over again") is emphatic: this would not be a new development but a tragic repetition of their former slavery — only now made worse by their knowing better.

This verse is diagnostic: Paul names the specific practice that reveals the Galatians' drift. The verb παρατηρεῖσθε (present middle) means to watch carefully, to observe scrupulously — the middle voice adding the sense of doing so for one's own benefit or with personal investment. They are zealously keeping the Jewish calendar.

The four ascending categories — ἡμέρας (days: sabbaths, fast days), μῆνας (months: new moon celebrations), καιροὺς (seasons: Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), ἐνιαυτούς (years: sabbatical years, year of jubilee) — constitute the entire Jewish liturgical calendar as outlined in Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28-29. Paul does not object to the calendar per se (he observed Jewish practices when expedient, cf. 1 Cor 9:20) but to its adoption as a requirement for full standing before God — as if the covenant community's validity depended on it.

The present tense confirms this is not a hypothetical concern: it is already happening. The Judaizing agitators have succeeded in persuading at least some Galatians to begin observing the Torah calendar as a marker of covenant membership. Paul's point from v.9: this is functionally equivalent to their former slavery under pagan elemental powers. Trading one set of religious regulations for another — without Christ as the pivot — is no progress.

Paul's emotional register shifts sharply. φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς — the accusative object with φοβέομαι here expresses fearful concern for them (not fear of them). Paul is anxious on their behalf. The present tense captures an ongoing, deepening worry.

The fear clause μή πως εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς ("lest somehow I have labored over you in vain") carries enormous pastoral weight. The perfect tense κεκοπίακα — "I have labored and the labor stands" — refers to the exhausting work of his initial mission among them (cf. vv.13-14). Κοπιάω denotes sweat-producing, bone-wearying toil. The adverb εἰκῇ ("in vain, without purpose") echoes 3:4 — the same word used for the potential vanity of their sufferings. If they defect to Torah-observance as the basis of covenant standing, Paul's entire apostolic labor among them would have achieved nothing lasting.

This verse begins the deeply personal section (vv.11-16) in which Paul sets aside theological argument and appeals from the heart. The pastoral bond between apostle and congregation comes into sharp focus.

The argument pauses entirely. Paul abandons theological reasoning and speaks from the heart, apostle to congregation. The command Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ ("become as I am") refers to Paul's own freedom from Torah as the basis of covenantal status. He abandoned the regulation-system of Jewish identity markers — not the law's moral content, but its function as ethnic boundary — when he encountered the risen Christ (cf. Phil 3:4-11).

The ground clause ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς ("because I also have become as you") is the counterpart: when Paul was among the Galatians, he lived as a Gentile — "to the Gentiles I became as a Gentile" (1 Cor 9:21). He abandoned Torah-observance as a social boundary in order to be fully present with them. Now he asks them to reciprocate: become like me, free in Christ, as I became like you, free from Torah.

The vocative ἀδελφοί ("brothers") appears tenderly at the pivot of the appeal. The following δέομαι ὑμῶν ("I beg you") — with the genitive of the person implored — is the language of earnest petition, almost supplication. Paul is not commanding from apostolic authority here but pleading from relational love.

The statement οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε ("you did me no wrong") is puzzling in its abruptness. Most likely: Paul is heading off a potential misunderstanding — his sharp words of rebuke (3:1-5; 4:9-11) should not be read as a personal grievance. His concern is not wounded pride but their spiritual welfare. The historical reference sets up what follows: a fond recollection of their original welcome of him.

Paul recalls the circumstances of his first preaching among them. The perfect οἴδατε carries present force — "you know," and they do; this is shared memory, not new information, which is why the appeal lands.

The prepositional phrase δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός is best taken causally: it was because of a bodily weakness that he preached to them the first time. Whatever the ailment — the suggestions run from an eye complaint (cf. v. 15) to malarial fever — the point is that his evangelizing among them was unplanned, forced on him by illness. The gospel reached Galatia through Paul's weakness, not his strategy.

τὸ πρότερον ("the first time," or "formerly") implies at least a second visit, and is one of the details weighed in dating the letter and locating its recipients.

Paul recalls the extraordinary reception the Galatians gave him despite his debilitated condition. The phrase τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου is difficult: literally "the trial of you in my flesh." Most likely: "the trial/temptation that my physical condition presented to you" — i.e., Paul's repulsive or pitiable physical state was a potential stumbling block to their reception of his message.

The verb ἐξεπτύσατε ("you did not spit out") is a NT hapax and probably preserves a specific cultural practice: spitting was an apotropaic gesture used in antiquity to ward off the evil eye, epilepsy, or other conditions thought to be caused by demonic influence. If Paul's illness was epilepsy or a disfiguring eye condition, the cultural reflex would have been to spit in his direction to protect themselves from contagion or ill-omen. They did not do this.

Instead, the Galatians received Paul with remarkable honor: ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ … ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν — "as an angel of God … as Christ Jesus." The escalating comparisons are striking: first an angelic messenger (the bearer of divine news), then Christ himself. This reflects the theological principle Paul cites in 1 Cor 12:3 and the Didache tradition: reception of the apostle is reception of the one who sent him (cf. Matt 10:40). Their original reception was an act of genuine faith — they saw through Paul's physical weakness to the divine message he carried.

The question ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν ("where then has your blessing gone?") is a poignant lament over a vanished joy. Μακαρισμός is the noun form of the verb used in the Beatitudes — the declaration of blessedness. Paul is asking: where is the exultant happiness you once had? Their original reception of Paul and his gospel was characterized by joyful, grateful blessing — a sense of profound good fortune at having received the good news.

The testimony that follows is remarkable: εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ μοι — "if it had been possible, having torn out your own eyes, you would have given them to me." The vivid aorist indicative without ἄν (unusual for a contrary-to-fact conditional) gives the statement a dramatic, almost breathless directness — they were that devoted. The specific mention of eyes strongly supports the view that Paul's illness involved his eyes (cf. 6:11: "see with what large letters I write"), and the Galatians' willingness to sacrifice their own eyes for him would have been an especially poignant gesture of solidarity with his suffering.

The contrast with the present situation — where they are drifting from Paul's gospel under the influence of agitators — is devastating. From ready to sacrifice their eyes to potentially treating him as an enemy (v.16). The depth of their former love makes the present estrangement all the more grievous.

This verse is the crystallization of the entire personal appeal. The perfect γέγονα ("I have become") suggests a settled state — in their eyes, Paul has become an enemy. This likely reflects the agitators' strategy: portraying Paul as an adversary who misled the Galatians by preaching an incomplete gospel (no circumcision, no Torah), while presenting themselves as the corrective teachers who bring the full truth.

The means participle ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν ("by telling you the truth") is stinging in its irony. The very act that should establish Paul as a true friend — honest, pastoral truth-telling — has been reframed by his opponents as evidence of enmity. Paul's letter itself is an act of truth-telling (3:1: "before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified"); the Galatians' discomfort with its directness does not make him their enemy.

The rhetorical question expects the answer "no" — of course Paul is not their enemy. But the question also functions as an implicit exposure of the agitators: those who flatter and tell the Galatians what they want to hear (cf. 4:17: "they make much of you, but for no good purpose") are the real adversaries. True friendship, Paul implies, looks like honest rebuke; flattery that leads one into slavery is the real enemy.

The verse closes the personal appeal section with unresolved tension — Paul does not yet know whether his appeal will succeed. The emotion is raw: from the joy of their first meeting (vv.13-15) to the possibility of enmity (v.16) captures the full arc of the apostolic relationship under threat.

I. The Minor Heir Extended (vv.1–2). Paul extends the παιδαγωγός analogy of 3:23–25 with a new but related legal illustration: the minor heir who, despite owning the entire estate, is practically indistinguishable from a slave because he is under guardians and managers until the father's appointed date. This models Israel's experience under the law: legally heirs of the Abrahamic promise, but practically under custodial jurisdiction, awaiting the fullness of time.

II. Our Former Slavery (v.3). "We also" — Paul includes himself and the Galatians — were enslaved under the elemental principles of the world (τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου). The periphrastic perfect-imperfect construction emphasizes an entrenched, settled condition of bondage. This encompasses both Jewish existence under Torah and Gentile existence under pagan religion — both were "elementary" forms of religious life awaiting the fullness of revelation in Christ.

III. The Fullness of Time and Double Mission (vv.4–6). The pivot of the entire passage — and arguably of all Pauline theology — is vv.4–6. God sent his Son (v.4) and God sent his Spirit (v.6), two parallel divine sendings with a single purpose: to move humanity from slavery to sonship. The Son entered the human condition fully (born of a woman, born under law) in order to redeem from the inside. The Spirit enters believers' hearts to replicate the Son's own filial cry to the Father. The Trinitarian structure is striking: Father, Son, and Spirit each active in the work of adoption.

IV. The Logical Conclusion: Heir, Not Slave (v.7). The singular εἶ ("you are" — 2nd sg.) personalizes the inheritance for each believer. The before/after is absolute: no longer slave, but son; and if son, then heir. The entire custodial apparatus of the law is no longer operative.

V. The Astonishing Regression (vv.8–10). Against this backdrop, the Galatians' move toward Torah observance is incomprehensible. Having been known by God, having received the Spirit of sonship, having been declared heirs — they are turning back to "weak and beggarly elemental principles." Paul places Jewish Torah and Gentile paganism in the same functional category: both are pre-Christ religious systems operating on the elementary level, incapable of delivering the fullness of sonship.

VI. The Personal Appeal (vv.11–16). Paul abandons argument and speaks from the heart. He expresses fear (v.11), makes a reciprocal appeal grounded in his own self-identification with the Galatians (v.12), recalls their extraordinary reception of him in weakness (vv.13–14), laments the vanished joy of their original fellowship (v.15), and closes with the painful irony that his honest truth-telling has apparently made him their enemy (v.16).

1. The Incarnation as Salvific Entry (vv.4–5). The two participles γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον are a compressed Christology: the Son entered the full human condition and the specific legal-covenantal situation of Israel. His entry under the law was not incidental but necessary for redemption: he had to stand where the curse fell in order to absorb it and break its power. The double ἵνα of v.5 shows this was purposeful: redemption of those under law → adoption for all.

2. The Trinitarian Structure of Salvation (vv.4–6). The Father sends the Son (v.4); the Father sends the Spirit of his Son (v.6). Both sendings use the same verb (ἐξαπέστειλεν), drawing a deliberate parallel. The Spirit is specifically "the Spirit of his Son" — mediating the Son's own relationship with the Father into the believer's experience. The "Abba! Father!" cry is simultaneously the Spirit's cry in us and the echo of the Son's own address to the Father. This is the closest Paul comes to an explicit Trinitarian formulation.

3. Adoption (υἱοθεσία) as Legal-Relational Transfer (v.5). The Roman legal background of adoption enriches Paul's concept: adoption was the formal legal transfer of a person into full sonship with all attendant rights, including inheritance. The adoptee received the father's name, the father's debts were cleared, and the former status was entirely replaced. For believers: the old status (slave, minor, enemy, Gentile outsider) is legally annulled; the new status (son, heir) is fully granted. This is not probationary but permanent.

4. The Στοιχεῖα and the Equivalence of Pre-Christ Religion (vv.3, 9). Paul's willingness to functionally equate Jewish Torah and Gentile paganism under the umbrella of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου is one of the most provocative moves in the letter. He is not saying they are morally identical — Torah is God's word; idols are nothing. He is saying that, as systems for determining covenantal standing before God, both are "elementary" compared to the full disclosure of sonship in Christ. Any attempt to return to external regulation — however sacred its origin — as the governing principle of one's relationship with God is a regression to minority.

5. The Pastoral Bond and the Cost of Truth-Telling (vv.12–16). The personal appeal section reveals the human cost of apostolic ministry. Paul's willingness to be vulnerable about his illness, to recall shared history, to express fear and grief — all of this grounds theological argument in relational reality. His closing question (v.16) stands as a perpetual challenge to all pastoral ministry: have I become your enemy by telling you the truth? Truth-telling in love is the most demanding and costly form of friendship.

Galatians 4:4 — "when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son" — has been one of the most quoted texts in Christian theology for articulating the historical particularity of the Incarnation. The phrase implies that history is teleological: it moves toward an appointed climax pre-determined by the Father. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.16.7) used it to argue against Gnostic docetism: the Son truly became human (γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός). The Nicene Creed's language of "incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" owes something to this Pauline formulation.

The υἱοθεσία ("adoption") language of v.5 is taken up extensively in Romans 8:14-17, 23 and Ephesians 1:5, where it becomes the organizing metaphor for the believer's eschatological status and present experience. Karl Barth drew heavily on Galatians 4:4-7 in his doctrine of reconciliation (Church Dogmatics IV.1-2) to argue that redemption and adoption are the twin movements of God's action in Christ: God descending into human bondage (vv.4-5) and humanity ascending into divine sonship (vv.6-7).

The στοιχεῖα debate has continued into the 21st century: Walter Wink's "Powers" trilogy and N.T. Wright's New Testament Theology both engage the question of whether the elemental forces are personal spiritual beings or impersonal cosmic principles — with significant implications for missiology and social ethics. Paul's precise intention remains exegetically contested, but his functional point is clear: Christ has broken their dominion, and any regression to pre-Christ religious regulation reinstates a defeated power.

This passage has 10 points at which the Byzantine Majority Text and NA28 diverge.

v. 15 — the Byzantine text includes ἂν, which NA28 omits.

v. 3 — where NA28 reads ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι, the Byzantine text has ἦμεν δεδουλωμένοι.

v. 6 — where NA28 reads ἡμῶν, the Byzantine text has ὑμῶν.

v. 7 — where NA28 reads ἀλλὰ, the Byzantine text has ἀλλ’.

v. 7 — where NA28 reads διὰ θεοῦ, the Byzantine text has θεοῦ διὰ χριστοῦ.

v. 8 — where NA28 reads φύσει μὴ, the Byzantine text has μὴ φύσει.

v. 11 — where NA28 reads μή πως, the Byzantine text has μήπως.

v. 14 — where NA28 reads ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ, the Byzantine text has μου τὸν ἐν τῇ.

v. 14 — where NA28 reads ἀλλὰ, the Byzantine text has ἀλλ’.

v. 15 — where NA28 reads Ποῦ οὖν, the Byzantine text has Τίς οὖν ἦν.

[Review: note here any variant that carries weight for the argument.]