corner graphic   Hi,    
ver. 2.0.19.11.17
Finding the new version too difficult to understand? Go to classic.studylight.org/

Bible Commentaries

John Eadie's Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians
Galatians 6

 

 

Introduction

Some begin this chapter with the previous verse; such as Meyer, Olshausen, Brown, and Hofmann. But there is really no ground for such a division. Nay, while there is a succession of hortatory statements down to Galatians 6:10, there is a change of person in this first verse; while ἀδελφοί often marks a transition to a new subject, though, from the nature of the case, it is here closely connected with the preceding paragraph. So much statement about the Spirit as our life, and about its fruit, may have suggested the appeal to the πνευματικοί, and the use of that term. At the same time, the restoration of a fallen brother in a spirit of meekness, is a duty quite opposed to that vainglory which the apostle has been condemning.


Verse 1

Galatians 6:1. The apostle, in drawing to a close, becomes the more affectionate and direct in his practical counsels and warnings; and he calls them again, in pointed and prominent love, ἀδελφοί, the emphasis being on this term, as if the clouds were lifting and the sun were shedding a parting ray.

᾿εὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἐν τινὶ παραπτώματι—“if a man be even surprised in any trespass.” The phrase ἐὰν καί does not put a case for mere illustration, like καὶ εἰ. Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. p. 519. For the Alexandrian spelling of the verb, as supported by the best MSS., see Tischendorf's Prolegomena, p. xlvii. The meaning of the verb has been variously given, the difficulty lying in the reference indicated by προ.

1. Some deny, indeed, that the meaning of the verb is at all modified by the προ; at all events, the Greek fathers make no account of it: οὐκ εἶπεν ἐὰν πράξῃ, ἀλλ᾿ ἐὰν προληφθῇ, τουτέστιν ἐὰν συναρπαγῇ (Chrysostom). But the influence of προ is felt in the signification of the verb, which is, to take before a certain time, or before another; to get the start, or in some way to anticipate, etc. The Vulgate renders, etsi praeoccupatus.

2. What may be called the incidental temporal reference may be discarded, either that προ means before the arrival of the epistle-anteaquam haec epistola ad vos veniat (Grotius), or to a repetition of an offence committed before-iterum peccantem (Winer, Matthies), or that the λαμβάνεσθαι takes place before the καταρτίζειν (Olshausen). In the first two cases the emphasis of καὶ προλημφθῇ is not brought out; and the last opinion is a truism, for it is implied in the very terms of the injunction. The idea of Bengel, that the meaning is, ante captus fuisse dicatur, qui nos, non laesus, laesit-who injures us before we injured him-is quite foreign to the context.

3. The most common mode of interpretation has been to give the προ the notion of “before one is aware,” as in the English Version, “if a man be overtaken,” be surprised, by a fault, before he has time to think of it. This idea is implied in the interpretation of the Greek fathers, and is followed by most: Si quis improviso (citius quam expectaverit s. quam sibi cavere potuerit) peccato quodam fuerit abreptus; or as Thomas Aquinas, imprudenter et ex surreptione lapsus. That the verb may bear such a meaning is not denied, but ἐν must then be regarded as instrumental or local (Rückert)-taken as if in a snare. Such a meaning evidently extenuates the sin referred to, and such an extenuation is contended for by this class of commentators. But such an extenuation diminishes also the necessity for so solemn an injunction as to restoration. A man surprised or betrayed suddenly into sin has an apology which in itself contains a claim for restoration, and it scarcely needed an admonition to remind the spiritual members of this duty. Besides, the καί has its intensive force, and προλημφθῇ is emphatic in position, indicating that the offence or sin is something which in its nature might repel sympathy and preclude restoration.

4. So that we prefer to take the verb as meaning, “if a man be surprised in a fault,” not into a fault-caught in it, not by it-overtaken in a fault, by detection, and before he can escape. So Ellicott, Alford, Prof. Lightfoot, and Meyer in his first and second editions. Thus Wisdom of Solomon 17:16 : εἴ τι γὰρ γεωργὸς ἦν τις ἢ ποιμὴν . . . προληφθεὶς τὴν δυσάλυκτον ἔμενεν ἀνάγκην. Kypke, Observ. 2.298. See John 8:4.

This exegesis preserves the unity of the sentence. For the καί is intensive,-not a case put for argument, as by καὶ εἰ, but a strong case which might occur. Klotz-Devar. 2.519. The noun παράπτωμα has not the idea of inadvertence in it, but is an act of sin, a falling away from a divine precept,-any particular trespass. See under Ephesians 2:1; Romans 5:15-16; Romans 5:20. It is the translation of various Hebrew words in the Sept.: Psalms 19:13; Ezekiel 14:13; Job 36:9; Ezekiel 3:20;- 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 2:13.

Luther lays stress on the ἄνθρωπος. “This term, a name of man, helpeth somewhat also to diminish or qualify the matter, as if he should say, What is so proper to man as to fall, to be deceived and to err? (Leviticus 6:3.)” But though the idea of weakness may be found in the word in certain positions, as when it is in contrast with God, the term is here only a general expression.

The appeal is direct and immediate-

῾υμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον—“do ye the spiritual ones restore such a person.” The verb often means to refit or repair what is injured. Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19. It is applied in Galen to the setting of a bone; but Beza's application of such an image here is not at all necessary: Nitimini eum, quasi luxatum membrum. So Hammond, Bengel, Brown. The ethical sense is a common one. Herodotus, 5.106, κεῖνα πάντα καταρτίσω . . . ἐς τὠυτό. Chrysostom renders it διορθοῦτε, Theodoret στηρίζετε.

The πνευματικοί are not the presbyters (Hammond), nor those who thought themselves spiritual (Windischmann), but those in possession of that πνεῦμα on which such stress has been laid in the previous paragraph, those truly endowed with this divine gift; and because they were so endowed, they were to restore the fallen brother. Those ruled by the σάρξ could not do this duty; the spirit of provocation and envy already referred to quite unfitted them for such delicate work; they might only taunt, rebuke, and glory over an offending brother taken flagrante delicto. The πνευματικοί were therefore the best class in the church-the ripe, the experienced, the advanced in Christian excellence; and such a class is opposed to the ὡς σαρκικοί, ὡς νηπίοι ἐν χριστῷ, in as far as ζῆλος καὶ ἔρις had place among them. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. The οἱ πνευματικοί are thus different from οἱ δυνατοί, Romans 15:1; at least it is a very different relation of parties in the church which is there referred to, for it is the strong and the weak in reference chiefly to dietetic ceremonialism.

The restoration of the sinning member to his normal state is to be carried out-

᾿εν πνεύματι πραΰτητος—“in the spirit of meekness.” The genitive is that of the characterizing moral quality-die dominirenden Eigenschaften, Scheuerlein, p. 115. Winer, § 34, 3, b. It is not to be diluted into πνεῦμα πρᾳΰ (Borger, Koppe, Brown); nor is πνεῦμα directly or immediately the Holy Ghost, as the Greek fathers and many after them suppose; nor is it a mere abstract characterization (Moeller), but rather their own spirit. The “spiritual,” led and endowed by the Spirit, had as one of His gifts-as one of His inwrought elements of character-a spirit of meekness. In 1 Corinthians 4:21 we have the phrase ἐν ἀγάπῃ πνεύματί τε πρᾳότητος, where the two nouns refer alike to inner disposition. See under Galatians 5:22-23. The restoration of a fallen brother is not to be undertaken in a distant or haughty spirit, or in a hard, dictatorial, or censorious style, which dwells bitterly on the sin, or brings its aggravations into undue relief, or condemns in self-complacent severity the weakness which led to the fall. The spirit of meekness compassionates while it must blame, soothes while it may expostulate; its fidelity is full of sympathy-itself the image of that gentleness which in the benign Exemplar did not “break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax.” In the exegesis of Rückert and Usteri the term πνεῦμα is all but superfluous.

And the duty of restoring an erring brother is to be done all the while under this self-applied caution-

σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς—“considering thyself, lest thou also shouldest be tempted.” The apostle suddenly appeals to each and every one of the spiritual. This individualizing use of the singular is no such solecism as Jerome apologizes for-profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non valebat. This change of number is not uncommon: ch. Galatians 4:7. Jelf, § 390; Winer, § 63, 2. D1 and F change the second person into the third-an evident and clumsy emendation.

The participle may have its temporal meaning, this self-consideration being an accompaniment of the duty enjoined. Calvin regards it as a warning against sin in the form of harshness exceeding the due limits; and again he says, “Whatever be our acuteness in detecting the faults of others, we are backward to acknowledge our own.” But these interpretations do not tally with the caution given in the next clause. The participle rather gives a subsidiary reason why the restoration is a duty, and especially why it should be gone about in a spirit of gentleness. Schmalfeld, § 207, 2, 3. For it is added, “lest thou also (as well as he) shouldest be tempted.” The subjunctive aorist is used-the thing apprehended, being still future, may not happen. Winer, § 56, β; Gayler, p. 325. See 1 Corinthians 7:5, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, James 1:14. That which has happened to him who has been caught in a fault may happen to any of you. Each of you is liable to temptation, and under a sense of that liability should act toward the lapsed one in a spirit of gentleness: his case may be thine; for thou art what thou art only by the grace of Him “who is able to keep thee from falling.” The statement is in contrast to that vainglory which leads to provocation and envy; and these beget self-conceit and censoriousness. Lachmann connects this clause with the following verse. But the connection is unnatural. The liability of one's self to fall through temptation has a natural relation to the duty of restoring a fallen brother-not so much with bearing one another's burdens; the καὶ σύ refers to τοιοῦτον, but the reference would be virtually lost in Lachmann's construction with ἀλλήλων.


Verse 2

Galatians 6:2. ᾿αλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε—“One another's burdens do ye bear.” This verse broadens the sphere of duty enjoined in the previous verse; or it presents that duty in a form not specialized as in the first verse: the spirit that restores a fallen brother should pervade ordinary Christian relations. The βάρη have been unduly narrowed in the definition of them. They are not weaknesses simply, as in Romans 15:1, but also errors, trials, sorrows, sins, without any distinct specification. And they are not merely to be tolerated, they are to be taken up as “burdens;” for the verb implies this. Matthew 20:12; Acts 15:10. Whatever forms a burden to our brethren we are to take upon ourselves, and carry it for them or with them, in the spirit of Him “who bore our sins and carried our sorrows.” The burden to be borne is not to be limited to ψυχὴ ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος συνειδήσεως βεβαρημένη. Theodore Mops. There does not therefore seem to be any covert allusion to the self-imposed burdens of the law (Alford). The emphasis is on ἀλλήλων, giving distinctness to the duty as a mutual duty: “Weep with them that weep.” Mutual interposition in sympathy and for succour in any emergency-fellow-feeling and fellow-helping-is the duty inculcated, as opposed to that selfish isolation which stands aloof, or contents itself with a cheap expression of commiseration, or an offer of assistance so framed as to be worthless in the time or the shape of it. The apostle exemplifies his own maxim, 2 Corinthians 11:29.

The reading of the next clause is doubtful. The Received Text has καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσατε τὸν νόμον τοῦ χριστοῦ—“and so fulfil the law of Christ.” This reading is supported by A, C, D, K, L, א, nearly all MSS., and is found in the Syriac (Philox.), and in many of the Greek fathers. It is also adopted by Griesbach, Scholz, Reiche, Alford, and Tischendorf in his 7th ed. The other reading is the future ἂναπληρώσετε—“and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ.” It is supported by B, F, G, two MSS., the Vulgate and Claromontane Latin, the Syriac (Peschito), the Armenian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ethiopic versions, Theodoret (MS.), and some of the Latin fathers; and it is admitted by Lachmann, Meyer, and Ellicott. Diplomatic authority is in favour of the common text; but the versions give decided countenance to the other reading in the future, which Alford regards “as a probable correction, the imperative aorist being unusual” (Winer, § 43). The difference is but that of a single letter, and one may suppose that a copyist might change the future to make both clauses imperative. The present would have been “natural” (Ellicott), but the καὶ οὕτως seems to point to the future. It is impossible to come to a definite conclusion, and the meaning is not really affected whatever reading be adopted.

Borger, Rückert, Brown, and others are wrong in assigning the compound ἀναπληροῦν the mere sense of the simple πληροῦν. The preposition gives the idea of a complete filling, of a filling up. Colossians 1:24; Philippians 2:30; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; Sept. Exodus 23:26; Strabo, vi. p. 223; Joseph. Antiq. 5.6, 2; Tittmann, De Syn. p. 228; Winer, De verborum cum praep. composit. in N. T. usu, iii. pars 11.

The “law of Christ” is not simply the law of love, or His new commandment which is only one precept of His law (Theodoret, De Wette, Usteri), but His entire code, which indeed is summed up in love. Whoso, from right motive and in true form, bears the burdens of others, has so drunk into the spirit of Christ who carried our burdens, has so realized the gentleness and sympathy of His example who “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,” that he fully obeys His law,-a law which reprobates all hard, sullen, and self-absorbed individualism, and is fulfilled in love to God and to all that bears His image. The explanation of Chrysostom, κοινῇ πάντες—“fulfil it in common by the things in which ye bear with one another, each completing what is wanting in his neighbour,”-is not to the point. The injunction is meant for Christians, and there is a contrast recorded (Revelation 2:2) in praise of the church of Ephesus: ὅτι οὐ δύνῃ βαστάσαι κακούς. There may be a tacit reference to the νόμος which the Galatians, under the teaching of the Judaizers, were taught to obey, but which was not in authority or contents the law of Christ. See under Galatians 5:14.


Verse 3

Galatians 6:3. εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι, μηδὲν ὤν—“For if any one think himself to be something, while he is nothing.” This verse is closely connected by γάρ with the one before it, either as an argumentum e contrario for the immediately preceding clause (Meyer), or as a confirmation, by showing the evils of the opposite course (Ellicott). Hofmann refers it more to the mutuality of the duty than to the duty itself. The apostle had already said, “Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted;” consciousness of frailty leads to mutual attachment, and shows the need of mutual support. But self-importance based on self-ignorance is the grand hindrance to the duty of mutual burden-bearing. If a man thinks himself so perfect that he can have no burden which others may carry with him, or for him; if he regards himself so far above frailty, sin, or sorrow, that he neither needs nor expects sympathy nor help,-he will not readily stoop to bear the burdens of others. On the meaning of εἶναί τι, etc., compare Acts 5:36, 1 Corinthians 3:7; 1 Corinthians 13:2, 2 Corinthians 12:11. The phrase μηδὲν ὤν is expressive—“being nothing,” all the while he is thinking himself something,-the condition affirmed in ὤν underlying the mental action in δοκεῖ. The participle has its common temporal signification. The use of the subjective μηδέν is not, as Ellicott warns, to be overpressed, since it is the prevailing usage with participles in the New Testament. Here, however, and in such a verse, it may have its proper signification-not simply objective οὐδέν, but μηδέν: “nothing,” not ironically, nor merely in the writer's opinion (Gwynne); nor “if he would come to himself, and look on the real fact, nothing” (Alford); but in sober judgment, according to true estimate, nothing. On δοκεῖ, see Trench, Synon. ii. § 30. The phrase is a common one. Plato, Apolog. 41, E, ἐὰν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι μηδὲν ὄντες; Arrian, Epictet. 2.24, δοκῶν μέν τι εἶναι ὢν δ᾿ οὐδείς; Euripides, Electra, 370, ἄνδρα . . . τὸ μηδὲν ὄντα; Supplices, 424, πονηρὸς ἀξίωμ᾿ ἀνήρ . . . οὐδὲν ὤν. See examples in Wetstein; in Kypke, 2.291; and in Raphel. 2.457. See also under Galatians 2:6; Galatians 2:9. Some, as Baumgarten, Hensler, Jatho, and Hofmann, connect the words with the concluding sentence-he deceiveth himself, as being one who is nothing; but the connection weakens the force of the declaration, and takes away the point and antithesis of the previous clause. Such a one-

φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν—“deceiveth his own mind”-an example of “vainglory.” The Received Text, which reverses this order, has good but not decisive authority; A, B, C, אgiving the order we have preferred. The verb is only found here in the New Testament, but in no earlier Greek writers, though it occurs afterwards in the ecclesiastical authors. The noun φρεναπάτης, however, is found in Titus 1:10. The word, probably coined by the apostle, denotes a self-deception of a nature solely subjective; corresponding, therefore, to the previous δοκεῖ in the premises. Comp. James 1:26. This self-conceited and in result self-duped man is incapable of bearing others' burdens, and is insensible to the obligation. The true estimate of ourselves, which we ought to cherish, is given us in Luke 17:10.


Verse 4

Galatians 6:4. τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος—“But let each one prove his own work.” While a momentary introspection may lead to morbid self-exaltation, the actual judgment passed on deeds may conduce to a proper estimate; δέ being in contrast with what is said in the previous verse of self-inflation and self-deception: let there be account taken of “work.” The stress is from its position on ἔργον, which is deepened by ἑαυτοῦ, and which, as Meyer remarks, is collective in meaning, as in Romans 2:15, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 22:12. See Winer, § 27, 1, and the limits which he gives to the collective singular. His work-his own work-himself embodied in act,- τὸν ἑαυτοῦ βίον (Theodoret),-the outer shape and expression of the inner realities,-let him test this, put it to the proof; the δοκιμάζειν responding to the δοκεῖ, and being its grand corrective. Such is the meaning of the verb-to prove, to put to the test, Luke 14:19; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 11:28; 1 Thessalonians 2:4. It does not mean probatum reddat, sc. deo, as is thought by Beza, Piscator, Wesselius, Justinianus, Rückert, Matthies. Theophylact thus explains: ἐξεταζέτω μετὰ ἀκριβείας τὰς ἑαυτοῦ πράξεις, τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ, δοκιμαζέτω. OEcumenius, more pointedly: καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἐρευνᾷ ἀκριβῶς.

καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον τὸ καύχημα ἕξει, καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον—“and then he shall have ground of boasting only in relation to himself, and not in relation to the other.” Let him put his work to the test,-not this act or that act, but his whole work in its complex unity,—“and then,” καὶ τότε, that is, when he shall have done this; it being implied that his work has stood the test, though there is no formal ellipse, as Estius, Borger, Turner, and others suppose. καύχημα, not καύχησις, is not glorying (Bagge), but the ground of glorying, Romans 4:2, compared with Romans 3:27; 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 9:15-16; Philippians 1:26; Philippians 2:16. Ellicott takes the article τό in its pronominal meaning-his ground of boasting. Middleton, Gr. Art. 5.3. But it may be quite as well taken in its ordinary signification-that ground of boasting which he may find after putting his work to the proof. The future ἕξει refers to the having as subsequent to the previous testing, and carries in it no allusion to the last judgment, though many expositors hold such an opinion. The phrase εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον ἕξει is taken by some to mean, “and then he shall hold his glorying to himself.” So Hilgenfeld: seinem Ruhm für sich selbst zu behalten, mit gegen Andere geltend zu machen. So Koppe, Storr, Flatt, and Usteri. But while the verb may have such a meaning, it is better to take the words in their ordinary signification, especially as εἰς is employed, which does not stand exactly for κατά, as in Theodoret- κατὰ σεαυτὸν σεμνύνου; nor for παρά, as in Winer's opinion, quoting Romans 4:2; the next clause showing the inapplicability of such a meaning here. Nor does it mean contra (Schott), as apparently in Luke 12:10; for “against himself” would not in this clause be a natural idea, though it would apply in the last clause, as “against the other.” De Wette, giving εἰς the same translation, für, in both clauses, alters the indicated relation in the second, making the first zu seiner eigenen Freude, and the second um sie damit zu reizen und herauszufordern. Jatho also gives the preposition the sense of für in the first clause, and of gegen in the second. But εἰς must bear the same meaning in both clauses, and it signifies “in reference to,” quod attinet ad. Acts 2:25; Romans 4:20; 2 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:16; Xen. Anab. 1.9, 16; Kühner, ii. § 603; Bernhardy, p. 221. In reference to himself- ἑαυτόν emphatic-he shall have ground of glorying, καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον—“and not in reference to the other,”-that is, the other with whom he brings himself into ideal comparison or contrast. οὐκ is objective-not as matter of opinion, but as matter of fact; and the article is not to be overlooked. Romans 2:1; Romans 13:8; 1 Corinthians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 10:24. But in this καύχημα, real or imaginary, is there a slight irony? Theophylact, after Chrysostom, says that the apostle speaks συγκαταβατικῶς οὐ νομοθετικῶς; and that there is irony in the clause is the opinion of Justinianus, Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Alford. This, however, does not appear likely; for the apostle is not bitter or scornful in tone: he does not deny that there may be matter of glorying; he only shows how it often and wrongly bases itself on vain and fallacious comparison with others. A man may test his own work; but he cannot know “the other,” and test his work. The Pharisee did not, could not, know the downcast suppliant when he thanked God that he was so much better than “this publican.” But if a man examine himself, and find not only faults and frailties, but also germs of grace and goodness, then has he ground of glorying, in reference to himself, not certainly in himself, but in the mercy and power of the Saviour in him. This is really glorying in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:31; 2 Corinthians 10:17. Compare 2 Corinthians 12:5; 2 Corinthians 12:9, where to glory in infirmities is really to glory in that grace which such infirmities attract to themselves, but for which His grace could not have proved its sufficiency, and without which His strength could not have demonstrated its perfection. Thus Castalio says: probitas in re, non in collatione; and Calvin writes: ea demum est vera laus, non quam aliis detrahendo nobis conciliamus, sed quam habemus sine comparatione. “The other” does not in any way enter as an element into that experience which concerns himself alone; for his own numerous imperfections, which pressing upon his notice and filling him with profound regrets, prevent him from judging his neighbour or exulting over him. Humility and thankfulness ever characterize this glorying in reference to himself, one reason being-


Verse 5

Galatians 6:5. ῞εκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει—“For each one shall bear his own burden.” The γάρ does not indicate an ellipse—“such comparative rejoicing is worthless, for;” but rather it refers to the last clause—“and not in reference to the other.” No one can glory in reference to his neighbour; for he will find on that self-inspection recommended that he has many frailties in himself-something which clings to him, and ever rebukes conscious or self-exultant comparison. This is more natural than the connection with the clause, “Let every one prove his own work-for every one must bear his own burden,”-the connection of Beza, Matthies, Hofmann; but the intervening clauses declare against it. φορτίον-a diminutive in form only-is something which one carries, a pack. Sirach 21:16, ὡς ἐν ὁδῷ φορτίον; Xen. Mem. 3.13, 6, εἰ καὶ φορτίον ἔφερε. But the βάρη of Galatians 6:2 means loads-heavy loads, which they are asked to carry in sympathy, which some refused to carry; while φορτίον is a burden which each one has-something individual, and of which one cannot rid himself. The βάρη are always heavy; but you may have on the one hand φορτία βαρέα, Matthew 23:4, and on the other a φορτίον ἐλαφρόν, Matthew 11:30. The Vulgate and Claromontane wrongly render both Greek words by onus; but the Syriac rightly renders the first by יוּקרוֹא, onus, and the second by מָובלוֹא, sarcina. This “burden” is not “punishment,” as is supposed by Theodoret, Jerome, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, a-Lapide, Estius, Bengel, and Rückert. For the φορτίον is borne now; and because each one now bears it, and feels its weight, he is not to form hard opinions or pronounce unjust decisions about others. Nor is it simply responsibility (Gwynne), but his own peculiar ( ἴδιον) present sin and weakness, which ought to lead him to be charitable. The idea of either future punishment or responsibility is foreign to the course of thought. And the future has its ethical signification-shall bear = must bear, from the very nature of things. Winer, § 40, 6; Bernhardy, pp. 377-8; Kühner, 446, 3. The verse expresses a general truth which is or shall be ever realizing itself as a thing of moral necessity. Bisping and Windischmann take the future as the previous ἕξει-he will find at the end of his self-examination that he is to bear his own burden. This is unnecessary. In fine, there is no discrepancy between this and the second verse. The two verses are like two stars revolving round each other. The second verse enjoins sympathy and mutual burden-bearing; while this verse describes that individual load which each one carries, and which no one can bear for him.


Verse 6

Galatians 6:6. κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς—“But let him who is taught in the word communicate with him who teacheth in all good things.” The verb κατηχέω, besides its literal signification, denotes to communicate information orally-to sound it in one's ears, Acts 21:21; Acts 21:24; or to teach by means of oral instruction, Acts 18:25, 1 Corinthians 14:19; sometimes with περί and a genitive, referring to the contents, Luke 1:4; or with ἐκ, Romans 2:18, referring to the source. Sometimes it has both a genitive of thing and person, Acts 21:24. The word, however, seems here to signify to teach or instruct generally. Such instruction was in the early church usually oral, and could at that time be nothing else; but the oralness of it ceases to be recognised as a primary and distinctive feature. Thus the Greek fathers explain the word simply by διδασκόμενος or μαθητευόμενος; Hesychius explaining παιδευόμενος. It came to denote familiar tuition; and the κατηχούμενοι, as opposed to the πιστοί, were persons under preliminary instruction in the elements of Christianity. The passive participle κατηχούμενος is here followed by the accusative of reference or second government, Winer, § 32, 5; or, as Schmalfeld calls it, “of qualitative object,” § 25. Jelf, § 579; Suicer, sub voce. ῾ο λόγος is the gospel. Acts 13:26; Acts 15:7; Acts 20:32; Luke 1:2; Luke 5:1; Ephesians 1:13.

The duty of him who is instructed in the word is expressed by κοινωνείτω . . . τῷ κατηχοῦντι—“let him share with him that teacheth.” The verb is sometimes used with the genitive, “to partake of,” Hebrews 2:14; and sometimes with the dative, “to share in,” Romans 12:13; Romans 15:27, 1 Timothy 5:22, 1 Peter 4:13; Wisdom of Solomon 6:25, οὐ κοινωνήσει σοφίᾳ. It is also found with the dative of person, the thing being governed as here by ἐν, or by εἰς, as in Philippians 4:15. Plato, De Repub. 5.453. In the New Testament the prevailing if not uniform sense is intransitive, though not in classical usage. Xen. Mem. 2.6, 22; Polyb. 2.42, 5; Plato, De Leg. 8.844. It may stand, according to Thomas Magister, either ἀντὶ τοῦ συμμετέχω σοι, or ἀντὶ τοῦ μεταδίδωμι . . . ὧν ἔχω. The sense is then strictly, not-let him communicate, but, let him be in communication with; and it may be either as giver or receiver-the last in Romans 15:27, and the first in Romans 12:13. The transitive sense would seem to require τῶν ἀγαθῶν, but ἐν agrees with the intransitive-the sphere of communication. Franke (in Wolf) joins the phrase ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς with the immediately preceding words, τῷ κατηχοῦντι-with him that teacheth in all good things. But in that case the accusative would be employed.

The meaning of the phrase itself has been disputed. Marcion (in Jerome), Hennike, Matthies, Meyer, Schott, Trana, Jatho, Sardinoux, and Keerl understand it of spiritual things; Vömel supplying this contrast-in allem Guten, nicht in Irrlehren. See Mynster's kleine theol. Schriften, p. 70. The words may bear such a meaning. The article is wanting here; so that τὰ ἀγαθά, John 5:29, and τὸ ἀγαθόν in the following Galatians 6:10, are not adducible in proof. Were this the sole view, the communication would be tantamount to imitation, or the connection between teacher and taught was to refer to all kinds of spiritual good-getting it, or rather giving it, as the injunction is upon “the taught.” But the singular is more in Paul's style when he refers to ethical good. Colossians 1:10; Hebrews 13:21, ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ; Romans 2:10; Romans 12:2; Romans 12:9; Romans 13:3; Romans 16:19; Ephesians 6:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; Philemon 1:6, etc.; Sept. Isaiah 7:15. The reference to temporal things is the almost unanimous opinion of ancient and modern interpreters. ᾿αγαθά has this sense, Luke 12:18-19; Luke 16:25, and often in the Septuagint, 2 Samuel 7:28, 1 Chronicles 17:26, 2 Chronicles 18:12; 2 Chronicles 18:17. Comp. Luke 1:53. At all events, it is virtually the same doctrine which he teaches in 1 Corinthians 9:11. Compare 1 Thessalonians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:9, 1 Timothy 5:17-18. The occurrence of πᾶσιν is somewhat difficult, and the expression is vague. Wieseler therefore includes both ideas in the reciprocal sense-the taught being in communication with the teacher in temporal things, as the teacher is in communication with the taught in spiritual things. See also Bagge, Gwynne, Schmoller.

It is somewhat difficult to trace the connection; but it seems to be suggested by the last verse. The δέ may continue the thought under another aspect; thus, he had said, “Bear one another's burdens”-now- δέ, this is one form in which the precept may be obeyed;-or he had said, Every man must bear his own load; but- δέ, this does not exempt you from bearing the burden of your teachers. It is an obligation not to be slighted, or left to mere caprice. So-called voluntaryism is not optionalism. The duty consists (Theophylact) in the giving to the pastor of “food, raiment, honour,” etc.- τροφῆς, ἐνδύματος, τιμῆς; “for thou receivest more than thou givest-spiritual things for carnal things.” Keerl takes the connection from Galatians 6:1, understanding by “him who is taught in the word” the fallen brother who has been restored, while the intervening verses guard the “spiritual” restorers against pride. But this connection is artificial and narrow.


Verse 7

Galatians 6:7. The connection again is rather obscure. Chrysostom, Theophylact, OEcumenius, Luther, Hunnius, Grotius, Bagge, Gwynne connect the verse with the immediately preceding one. Thus also Prof. Lightfoot, who thus paraphrases: “What, you hold back! Nay, do not deceive yourselves.” But such a connection is too limited to warrant the broader statement of the following verses. Some would refer the first clause, “Be not deceived,” to what follows. But probably the warning has been suggested by the preceding context, and not simply or solely by the previous verse, as there is no formal connecting particle. The paragraph treats of duties which spring out of love, the fruit of the Spirit, and are themselves forms of spiritual beneficence or well-doing,-duties, however, which one may be tempted to neglect, or regard only in a negative aspect, so far as not to be acting in direct opposition to them. One may let a fallen brother alone, but without insulting him when he is down. One may refuse to bear another's burden, but without adding to its weight. One may decline communication in temporal things with a spiritual teacher, but without inflicting on him a positive and harmful expenditure. Men may in this way deceive themselves; or in some other form selfishness and the world may so hold them in bondage, that they may be sowing to the flesh. In passing from the more ideal to the more palpable forms of Christian beneficence, the apostle throws in the awful warning of the verse before us-

΄ὴ πλανᾶσθε, θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται—“Be not deceived, God is not mocked.” The same abrupt warning is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a sudden and earnest dissuasive from sinful practices which exclude from heaven; in the same epistle, 1 Corinthians 15:33, as a guard against Epicurean indulgence; and in James 1:16, where it is rendered, “Do not err.” The warning implies a liability to deception or error: in this case the deception appears to be, that a man may be sowing to the flesh, and yet be hoping to reap of the Spirit, or that for him might be changed the unchangeable order which God has ordained—“like seed, like harvest.” The verb μυκτηρίζω, from μυκτήρ, is to turn up the nose at, to sneer at, to mock. Sept. Job 22:19; Psalms 80:7; Isaiah 37:22; Jeremiah 20:7,-there representing the Heb. לָעַג, H4352; Proverbs 1:30; Proverbs 12:8; 1 Maccabees 7:34; 1 Maccabees 7:39. Quintilian defines μυκτηρισμόν, simulatum quidem, sed non latentem derisum, 9.8. In the life of Claudius, part of a letter of Augustus has σκώπτειν καὶ μυκτηρίζειν: Suetonius, p. 636, Valpy 1826. So Horace has naso suspendis adunco, Satir. 1.6, 5; naribus uti, Ep 1:19; Ep 1:45. God is not mocked, either in reality or with impunity (Ellicott); there is no such thing as mocking God. Wieseler takes the verb in the middle, “God will not suffer Himself to be mocked”-non sinit sibi irrideri. The expression is a strong one, taken from that organ of the face by which we express careless contempt. Men may be imposed on by a show of virtue on the part of one who all the while scorns their weakness, but God cannot be so mocked.

῝ο γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θερισει—“for whatsoever a man may sow, that also shall he reap.” The γάρ is confirmative; σπείρῃ is subjunctive present, though the subjunctive aorist is the more common after ἐάν; and the consequent clause is usually a future- θερίσει. Winer, 41, 2, b; Klotz-Devarius, 3.453, 4. Let him sow what he likes, τοῦτο with emphasis-that and that only, that and nothing else, shall he also reap; καί with its ascensive power-the sower is also the reaper. The future refers to the judgment, when the results of present action shall be felt in their indissoluble relations. The reaping is not only the effect of the sowing, but is necessarily of the same nature with it. He that sows cockles, cockles shall he also reap; he that soweth wheat, wheat also shall he reap. It is the law of God in the natural world-the harvest is but the growth of the sowing; and it illustrates the uniform sequences of the spiritual world. The nature of conduct is not changed by its development and final ripening for divine sentence; nay, its nature is by the process only opened out into full and self-displayed reality. The blade and the ear may be hardly recognised and distinguished as to species, but the full corn in the ear is the certain result and unmistakeable proof of what was sown. And the sowing leads certainly, and not as if by accident, to the reaping; the connection cannot be severed-it lies deep in man's personal identity and responsibility. Cicero gives the quotation, ut sementem feceris, ita metes, De Orat. 2.65. ῾ο σπείρων φαῦλα θηρίσει κακά, Gorgias, in Aristot. Rhet. 3.3. AEschylus, Prom. 322, σὺ δὲ ταῦτα αἰσχρῶς μὲν ἔσπειρας, κακῶς δὲ ἐθέρισας. Plato, Phaedr. 260, D, καρπὸν ὧν ἔσπειρε θερίζειν. Comp. Psalms 126:5-6, Hosea 8:7; Hosea 10:12, Job 4:8, Proverbs 22:8, 2 Corinthians 9:6.


Verse 8

Galatians 6:8. The previous verse presented the mere figure of sowing and of reaping, with certainty of reaping what may happen to have been sown. But the seed may be of two kinds, or the seed may be sown with two different purposes, and each purpose naturally and necessarily leads to its own result-

῞οτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν—“For he who is sowing unto his flesh, from the flesh shall reap corruption.” The various readings are of little value: only by an evident correction, F, G read τῇ σαρκί; and so the Vulgate and Claromontane, in carne sua. Matthias divides ὅτι into ὅ τι, and joins it to the previous clause: was es auch sein möge,-a useless suggestion. The statement is confirmatory- ὅτι, and the phrase εἰς τὴν σάρκα does not present the flesh as the field in or on which the seed is sown--tanquam in agrum (Bengel, Borger, Brown); for ἐν and ἐπί are employed for this purpose: the former in Matthew 13:24; Matthew 13:27, Mark 4:15, Exodus 23:16, Hosea 2:23; the latter as in Matthew 13:20; Matthew 13:23, Mark 4:16; Mark 4:20; Mark 4:31. εἰς, however, is found Matthew 13:22, Mark 4:18, and is regarded by Ellicott as signifying “among.” But εἰς in that place may bear its own meaning of “on”-the seed was sown on the thorns, which were invisible at the moment, and under the ground; and thus εἰς πέτρας τε καὶ λίθους σπείροντας, Plato, De Leg. 8.838, E. The verb is sometimes followed with the accusative of the seed, Matthew 13:24, Herod. 4.17, and sometimes with the accusative of the field sown, Sept. Exodus 23:10, Xen. Cyr. 8.3, 28. εἰς is to be taken here in an ethical sense, “with a view to;” and σάρξ is the unregenerate nature-the leading sense of the word throughout the epistle-the nature which specially belongs to him- ἑαυτοῦ, but not emphatic. The “flesh” is thus neither the field nor the seed; but that for the gratification of which the seed is sown, or that which forms the ruling end to the man's desires and actions, which governs and moulds the aspirations and workings of his present life. The seed sown is much the same as the ἔργα τῆς σαρκός. It is too narrow an interpretation to refer it to undue care for the wants of the present life (Calvin), or to a “sumptuous table and viands” (Chrysostom and his followers), or to withholding support from the ministers of God's word, and feeding and caring for themselves only (Luther, Olshausen). The reference to circumcision ( σάρξ), allowed by Pelagius, Schoettgen, Rückert, and Usteri, may be at once discarded; and any allusion to such asceticism as that which characterized the Encratites is also out of the question. Jerome condemns Cassian or Tatian as finding in the clause a prohibition of marriage. See also in Luther.

The harvest is φθορά—“corruption.” The noun means something more than that “the flesh is a prey to corruption, and with it all fleshly desires and practices come to nothing” (Alford, after Chrysostom and De Wette). 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 15:42; 1 Corinthians 15:50. It is here opposed to ζωὴν αἰώνιον, and must have its strongest and most awful signification, as in 1 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Peter 2:12. It may have been suggested by the use of σάρξ; but in meaning it is tantamount to ἀπωλεία, Philippians 3:20. Compare Matthew 7:13, Romans 9:22. Hesychius defines φθορά by ὄλεθρος. Herod. 7.18; Thucyd. 2.47; Plato, Leg. 677; Sept. Psalms 103:4, Jonah 2:7. The meaning, then, is different only in form from Romans 8:6, τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος. Romans 8:13; Romans 7:23.

But the converse is also true-

῾ο δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον—“but he who is sowing to the Spirit, from the Spirit shall reap life eternal.” As in Galatians 5:16, etc., the Spirit is not the higher or renewed part of man's own nature (Rückert, Schott, Olshausen, Borger, Baumgarten-Crusius, Brown, and others), but the Spirit of God; and there is no ἑαυτοῦ with it as with σάρκα. Sowing to the Spirit produces “eternal life” as its harvest. Matthew 19:16-17; Matthew 25:46; Mark 10:17; Mark 10:30; Luke 10:25; Luke 18:18; John 3:15-16; John 5:24, etc. etc. αἰώνιος is an epithet of quantity, not of quality. Compare its use with δόξα, 2 Corinthians 4:17, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 5:10; with σωτηρία, Hebrews 5:9; with παράκλησις, 2 Thessalonians 2:16; with κληρονομία, Hebrews 9:15. The future verb refers to the harvest at the end of the world, though indeed it is enjoyed even now. John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:47. The clause is virtually the same in meaning with τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωή, Romans 8:6; Romans 8:13. The ζωὴ αἰώνιος has reference specially to blessedness in the future world, as the fruit of present grace and holiness, and as the object of hope. Romans 2:7; Romans 5:21; Romans 6:22; 1 Timothy 1:16; Titus 1:2; Titus 3:7. The life created by the Spirit, and sustained through believing oneness with Christ, can have neither pause nor end. It is immortal from its living union with Him who “only hath immortality.”

The continued and wilful indulgence of our unrenewed nature becomes its own penalty, as it does not realize the end of its being, and unfitting itself for blessedness, sinks and darkens into ruin; but the work of the Spirit of God, fostered within us and consciously elevated into predominant and regulative influence, ripens surely into blessedness. The process in both cases is a certain one- θερίσει-as certain as that between sowing and reaping; and the identity of the harvest with the seed sown is emphatically marked- ἐκ τῆς σαρκός . . . ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

The apostle now encourages to the second kind of sowing-


Verse 9

Galatians 6:9. τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν—“But in well-doing let us not be faint-hearted.” The ἐκκακῶμεν of the common text, after C, D3, K, L, does not seem to be a Greek word at all. See under Ephesians 3:13. Similar variation occurs also in Luke 18:1, 2 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16, 2 Thessalonians 3:13. Meyer, however, prefers ἐκκακῶμεν, regarding the other as an emendation-als Besserung, and this as an oral form introduced into his epistles by Paul. The form ἐγκακῶμεν is supported by A, B, D1, א. The pronunciation and spelling of the two words are so like, that one needs not wonder at the variations. Both forms, however, occur in Hesychius; but neither the one nor the other is found in the Sept. The form ἐνκ. occurs in Polybius, 4.19, 10; Symmachus, Genesis 27:46, Numbers 21:5, Isaiah 7:16; and in Theodotion, Proverbs 3:11, where the Sept. has ἐκλύου. The meaning is not essentially different; the verb compounded with ἐκ meaning to faint so as to back out of, and the verb with ἐν to lose courage in course of action. The δέ introduces a new address in contrast with the sowing to the flesh already described: “but for our part.” Hartung, i. p. 166, states the case, and adds, that in such places it appears to take the place of οὖν. The phrase τὸ καλόν, here emphatic, signifies that which is beneficent, or what is absolutely good, beautifully good. See under next verse. 2 Thessalonians 3:13. It is beneficence in its highest aspect, such as was embodied in a gracious miracle of healing- καλῶς ποιεῖν, Matthew 12:12. It may here cover the ground of the previous context, as the duties there set forth are distinctive elements of the τὸ καλόν-acts of generosity, robed in that love which is itself perfection. Compare Luke 8:15; Xen. Cyr. 5.3, 2. There is a levis paronomasia between καλόν and - κακῶμεν-in well-doing let us not be ill-hearted. And the duty is enforced by the cheering prospect-

καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν, μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι—“for in due time we shall reap, if we faint not.” The unwearied well-doing is now understood as a sowing, and the figure of reaping is again introduced.

The phrase καιρῷ ἰδίῳ means “in due time,” or at the proper season-the appointed time of the harvest. Compare the plural form, 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 6:15. It is a species of temporal dative, specifying the time within which the action takes place, Winer, § 31, 9; and usually it is expressed by ἐν. Krüger, § 48. “The harvest is the end of the world.” Matthew 13:30. It is no objection to say, as is done by De Wette, that well-doing brings its own reward even now. 2 Corinthians 9:8-9. For the figure is here preserved in harmony, and the sowing lasts all our lives. The time is with God, and His time for the harvest must be the right time and the best time. We are not to lose heart because the interval of labour may appear long, and the crop may not seem to be of speedy growth; for He is Judge, the seasons are in His hand, and at the divinely meted out period the invitation will be issued, “Thrust in thy sickle and reap.” The concluding words bear upon the same thought-

΄ὴ ἐκλυόμενοι—“if now we,” or “provided that we faint not”-that is, in our well-doing. The sentence is thus conditional, or, as Krüger calls it, hypothetische, im Falle-wenn, § 56, 11: we shall reap only if we do not faint,-the tense of the participle connecting it with our present state. The participle ἐκλυόμενοι is stronger than the verb ἐνκακῶμεν. Bengel says of them, ἐκκακ. est in velle, ἐκλυ. est in posse. The first is weakness of heart; and the second, as the result of the first, describes relaxed effort, prostration of power,-spoken of corporeal fainting in Matthew 15:32, and of mental exhaustion, Hebrews 12:3, 1 Maccabees 3:17; Joseph. Antiq. 5.2, 7. The view of the connection here given is the general view, enforcing the need of patience. Matthew 24:13; James 5:7; Revelation 2:10. Some, however, take μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι in a merely temporal or predicative sense: we shall reap, and in reaping be unwearied. Thus Theodoret: πόνου δίχα θερίσομεν τὰ σπειρόμενα. This is tantamount to saying, Nulla erit satietas vitae aeternae, and is pointed at in Luther's translation, ohne aufhören; the Vulgate having non deficientes, and the Claromontane non fatigati. See also Anselm, Homberg, and Usteri. Rückert and Schott are wrong, as Meyer shows, in objecting to this interpretation the occurrence of μή with the participle,-the prevailing usage in the New Testament (Winer, § 55, 5; Krüger, § 67, 7, etc.; Gayler, p. 274). But the exegesis, though grammatically tenable, is defective and unnatural. The last words are an emphatic warning, and describe the one condition on which the reward can be enjoyed; and while there is much about the working or sowing, there is nothing about the reward which may induce that fainting or down-heartedness against which the apostle guards. Similar repetitions occur in the apostle's writings, Romans 5:15-17, 2 Corinthians 12:7, Galatians 3:22, Ephesians 6:19-20; John 3:22. Hofmann begins a new sentence with the words, but the connection is awkward. Distinct encouragement is given us-the encouragement of the husbandman in sowing his fields, the bow in the cloud assuring him that seed-time and harvest shall not fail. The Christian doctrine of reward is in perfect harmony with the doctrine of grace.


Verse 10

Galatians 6:10. ῎αρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν—“So then as we have opportunity.” The particles ἄρα οὖν indicate an inferential exhortation; the first, ἄρα, meaning “such being the case;” οὖν, therefore, igitur, being an argumentative conclusion. Klotz-Devarius, 2.717. Compare Romans 5:18; Romans 7:3; Romans 7:25; Romans 8:12; Ephesians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The particle ὡς has had different meanings assigned to it.

1. Beza, Bengel, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, and Keerl regard it as meaning “so long as,” or while,-dum, Vulgate,-a sense not warranted by Pauline usage, but which is expressed rather by ἕως.

2. Koppe, Paulus, Usteri, and De Wette render it “because,”-a signification not found in the Pauline writings, not even in 2 Timothy 1:3

3. Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zachariae, and Hilgenfeld give it the meaning of “as often as,” or “when,” i.e. as often as we have opportunity. This meaning, which overlooks the reference to the καιρός of the previous verse, is involved in the simple and grammatical interpretation, next given.

4. Meyer, Wieseler, Hofmann translate it “as,” “in proportion as,” or, in proportion to the circumstances. The καιρός here refers to the καιρός of the preceding verse: as there is one καιρός for reaping, there should be also one for sowing; and in proportion as we have it, so ought we to improve it; the season for reaping is coming, the season for sowing is fast passing away.

καιρός is not χρόνος, tempus, but here tempus opportunum; though it has not that sense always, for it may be importunum. The Latin has no term for it, as Augustine complains, Ep. 197, 2. Ammonius says: ὁ μὲν καιρὸς δηλοῖ ποώτητά χρόνου, χρόνος δὲ ποσότητα. Trench, Syn. ii. p. 27. The phrase is a common one. See Wetstein in loc., and see under Ephesians 5:16.

᾿εργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας—“let us do that which is good toward all.” A, B2, L, some MSS. read ἐργαζόμεθα, but the text has preponderant authority. Lachmann, in his smaller edition, adopted ἐργαζόμεθα, and read the clause interrogatively-an abrupt and unnatural exegesis. The indicative would not be a stronger hortative form, as Meyer remarks, and Winer in his Grammar, though not in his Commentary. The usage is foreign to the New Testament, at least in non-interrogative clauses. See John 11:47, where, however, there is a question. But ο and ω are liable to be interchanged by copyists, as in Romans 5:1,-the ο induced here by the previous ἔχομεν, θερίσομεν, and no version is in favour of the change. τὸ ἀγαθόν is commonly taken to mean, either what is good in itself, Romans 2:10; Romans 7:19; Romans 13:3 -thus, too, ἀγαθοποιεῖν, 1 Peter 2:15; 1 Peter 2:20; 1 Peter 3:6; 1 Peter 3:17, and ἀγαθοεργεῖν, 1 Timothy 6:18; or what is good in result-an act of kindness or beneficence, Romans 12:21, 2 Corinthians 9:8, Philemon 1:14 : so ἀγαθοποιεῖν, Luke 6:33; Luke 6:35; Sept. Numbers 10:32, Judges 17:13, Zephaniah 1:13. The latter meaning is generally preferred. Meyer and Hilgenfeld, however, take it in the first sense. But there is no occasion to limit the meaning of the epithet; it is the thing which is good in each case, as the case may occur. The good thing may vary according to various wants, for it is to be done πρὸς πάντας—“towards all.” Winer, § 49, h. The entire paragraph has the idea of doing good underlying it: the restoration of a fallen brother, Galatians 6:1; the bearing of one another's burdens, Galatians 6:2; communication on the part of the taught to the teacher, Galatians 6:3; unwearied well-doing, Galatians 6:10; and this verse seems to sum up all these thoughts into one vivid injunction, which not only comprises them all, but enjoins similar social duty in all its complex variety. Whatever its immediate form, whether kindness, or beneficence, or mercy, whether temporal or spiritual in character, it is still good in its nature, and is “the good thing,” adapting itself to each case as it may turn up, in reference to all, generally or more specially.

΄άλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως—“but specially to them who are of the household of faith.” The δέ is omitted in the Authorized Version. ΄άλιστα δέ ( μάλιστα superlative of μάλα) does not put the two classes in opposition, though the sub-adversative meaning of δέ is not lost. First a wider class is spoken of, and then a narrower class within it is pointed out, and by certain qualities distinguished from it. 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Timothy 5:17. The οἱ οἰκεῖοι are those belonging to the οἰκία-relatives, domestics. Thus Ammonius, οἱ κατ᾿ ἐπιγαμίαν ἐπιμιχθέντες τῷ οἴκῳ; and Hesychius, οἱ κατ᾿ ἐπιγαμίαν προσήκοντες; and it represents שְׁאֵר, H8638, consanguineus, Leviticus 18:6; Leviticus 18:12-13. It means also one's own, or in a personal sense, what is not acquired,- οἰκεῖα ξυνέσις, mother-wit, Thucyd. 1.138; and in a national sense, οἰκ. σῖτος, home-grown corn, Thucyd. 2.60. In a more general sense it signifies relatives, familiars, friends, associates-the idea of the οἰκία receding into the background, especially when the word is followed by the genitive of an abstract noun. See sub voce, Ast, Lexicon Platon.; Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. Instances of the last signification are such as οἰκεῖοι φιλοσοφίας, Strabo, 1.13, p. 11, vol. i. ed. Cramer; γεωγραφίας οἰκεῖος, Strabo, 1.25, p. 20, ed. Cramer; οἰκείους ὀλιγαρχίας, Diod. Sic. 13.91, vol. i. p. 779, ed. Dindorf; οἰκεῖοι τυραννίδος, Diod. Sic. 19.70, vol. ii. p. 1409; πολιτικῆς ἀρετῆς οἰκεῖος, Plutarch, Philop. p. 397; Sept. Isaiah 58 : (see Wetstein in loc.). Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Borger, Baumgarten-Crusius, Trana, and Hofmann take the word, thus explained, as simply meaning, “those who belong to the faith.” On the other hand, Beza, Schott, Rückert, Olshausen, Wieseler, Bisping, Schmoller, Bagge, Lightfoot, keep the original idea, which is also given in the English version-domestici fidei, Vulgate. Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 3:6; 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 4:17. Meyer's objection, that the clause, to get this meaning, must be τοὺς ἡμῶν οἰκείους, is naught, as the idea of “our” is implied; for, when a believer characterizes fellow-believers as a household, he does not need to say ἡμῶν, inasmuch as the οἰκία τῆς πίστεως is a common heritage. Perhaps, after all, the truth in this passage lies between these two extremes. The reference to the spiritual οἰκία may not be in formal prominence, and yet the image may have suggested the phrase to the apostle, as denotive of a close and mutually recognised relationship. The duty inculcated in the verse is not indeed to be graduated, but fellow-believers have a primary claim. For one form of the duty in this nearer relation, as enjoined on the Galatian churches, see 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 —“the collection for the saints.” There is no ground for the supposition of Jerome, that “teachers” are meant by the phrase: domesticos fidei magistros nominat.

The verse enjoins generally φιλανθρωπία, man-love, and especially φιλαδελφία, brother-love-the love of the ὁμόπιστοι, the family feeling of Christianity. Julian (Ep. 49) admits that Christians did obey this injunction: τρέφουσιν οἱ δυσσεβεῖς γαλιλαῖοι πρὸς τοῖς ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοὺς ἡμετέρους. Tertullian, Adver. Marc. 4.16.


Verse 11

Galatians 6:11. Now follows what is virtually a postscript, which glances at some points already advanced, characterizes in a new light the Judaizing teachers, gives fervent utterance in contrast to his own great and unchanging resolves, touches on the absorbing spirituality of the gospel and his relation to the Master and His cross, and ends with earnest benediction. Thus it begins somewhat abruptly-

῎ιδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί—“Ye see,” or “look ye with how large letters I have written to you with mine own hand.” There are two marked divisions of opinion as to the meaning of πηλίκοις γράμμασιν, and two also as to the reference in ἔγραψα. The idea of the English version, that the first words assert the length or size of the epistle, is maintained by many, as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, a-Lapide, Bengel, Borger, Schott, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, and Turner; and they, of course, hold in general that the entire epistle was written by his own hand. The Authorized Version, “how large a letter,” follows some of its predecessors, as Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan. Wycliffe has “with what manner of letters.” To sustain the Authorized Version, it may be said that γράμματα, something written, may be rendered epistle, as the Latin literae. 1 Maccabees 5:10; Acts 28:21; Ignat. ad Rom. viii. It may denote not only writings, letters or despatches, but a single letter or epistle-Thucydides, 1:30, where γράμματα is identified with ἐπιστολή in the preceding paragraph, and 7:8, where a similar identification occurs. So, too, in Hebrew, רים הַסְּפָ, ִ writings, 2 Kings 19:14, rendered in our version “a letter,” is followed first by a plural suffix, agreeing with it in form, and then by a singular suffix, agreeing with it in sense. In the parallel passage, Isaiah 37:14, both the suffixes are singular, and the Septuagint renders in the singular, βιβλίου . . . αὐτό. The rabbinical expositors needlessly explain the use of the plural in different ways, Kimchi giving it a distributive meaning, and Luzzato supposing that it was customary to send duplicates of the same epistle. See Keil on the passage in Kings, and Alexander on that in Isaiah. But there are objections to taking the noun in this sense here. For, 1. The apostle never once employs γράμματα with this meaning, but uses ἐπιστολή no less than seventeen times. This place, therefore, can scarcely be regarded as an exception; at least there is nothing to induce us to suppose that in his choice of the term there is a solitary deviation from his usual style. 2. The accusative, were such the meaning, would naturally be expected. The cognate dative γράμμασιν γράψαι, like εἶπε λόγῳ, is not found in Paul's writings. 3. The meaning assigned to this unusual idiom-eine höhere Innigkeit und Starke-is not to be recognised, especially in a clause which has two other datives of person and instrument. The uncommon construction with a dative, and the selection of the term γράμμασιν, lead us therefore to conclude that the apostle means to say something more than that he has written a letter. 4. With the admission the γράμματα may not mean epistle, but a thing written, an alphabetic letter, the same signification may be ascribed to the clause: “with how many letters,” is virtually, how long or large a letter. Hesychius defines πηλίκον by οἷον, ὁποῖον. Laurent adopts this definition, qualibus literis, as in the Vulgate: “mark you with what kind of letters I have written;” simply calling attention to the handwriting of his first letter to them (Neutest. Studien, p. 5, Gotha 1866). But πηλίκοις is not πόσοις, and means, not “how many,” but “of what size;” for it applies not to number or character, or, as Ellicott expresses it, “it denotes geometrical, not numerical magnitude.” Sept. Zechariah 2:2, τοῦ ἰδεῖν πηλίκον τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ πηλίκον τὸ μῆκος; Hebrews 7:4, θεωρεῖτε δὲ, πηλίκος οὗτος-used in the same sense, though with an ethical application. Compare Plato, Men. p. 82, D, where πόσοι often occurs in the question, as πόσοι ποδές? whereas πηλίκος refers to the whole length of a line so measured: similarly do. p. 83, E, 85, A. 5. Nor can the epistle be really or absolutely called a long one, unless in connection with the emphatic clause, “with mine own hand.” The Syriac omits the epithet altogether. The phrase πηλίκοις γράμμασιν in the dative seems then to mean, “with how large letters or characters,”- γράμμασιν being used as in Luke 23:38, 2 Corinthians 3:7. Why the apostle should have employed so large characters, whether it were from the necessity of age, or from infirmity, or from want of habit in writing Greek, it is impossible to say.

Inferential meanings have been superimposed upon the words. Thus Chrysostom and his followers suppose the allusion to be to the misshapen aspect of the letters, and so Estius, Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, and Alford. Chrysostom says: τὸ δὲ, πηλίκοις, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ οὐ τὸ μέγεθος, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμορφίαν τῶν γραμμάτων ἐμφαίνων λέγειν. But πηλίκοις does not mean ποίοις, and size and awkwardness are different things, though perhaps to those who wrote a smaller hand elegance might appear to be incompatible with largeness. Nor can it be averred, with Chrysostom and Jerome, that the apostle did not know how to write Greek well; his early education at Tarsus forbids the supposition. At all events, the words do not of themselves convey such an idea; and though the great size of the letters would differ from ordinary handwriting, it might not present sprawling and unsightly characters. Why, then, did he call their attention to the size of the characters which he employed? Theodore of Mopsuestia says: μέλλων καθάπτεσθαι τῶν ἐναντίων, ἄγαν μείζοσιν ἐχρήσατο γράμμασιν ἐμφαίνων ὅτι οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐρυθριᾷ οὔτε ἀρνεῖται τὰ λεγόμενα-an opinion virtually acquiesced in by Lightfoot. But it does not follow that boldness of handwriting is any natural or undeniable proof of distinct and unabashed statement. Pelagius puts it thus: Intelligite quod non timeam qui literas manu mea nuper scripsi. Jerome gives another view: Ne aliqua suppositae epistolae suspicio nasceretur. Such a guard against forgery not only implies that his handwriting was already known to them, but the same purpose might have been served by a brief salutation.-Meyer, who restricts the reference to Galatians 6:12, or to 12-16 or 18, puts down the large letters to the apostle's desire to impress his readers with the importance of the statements so written. But the sentiments in the conclusion of the epistle are not more momentous than those which occur in the body of it. Any amanuensis also, as Wieseler remarks, could easily have used such large characters, if so instructed.

But what is the reference of ἔγραψα? The verb is what is called the epistolary aorist—“I have written,” and it is used in reference to the point of time when the epistle should be received and read: ἴδετε-as if the letter were in their hands, and before their eyes—“Look you with what large characters I have written.” The phrase may either characterize the postscript only, or it may comprehend the whole epistle. The verb itself will scarcely decide the question. Generally it is used of what precedes in a document, and it naturally occurs at its virtual conclusion, as in Romans 15:15, 1 Peter 5:12. It is employed also in reference to the previous portion of a letter, as in 1 Corinthians 9:15, Philemon 1:19; Philemon 1:21, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 2:21; 1 John 2:26; 1 John 5:13. The instances of its reference, with its proper sense, to some former communication, are of course not in point. 1 Corinthians 5:9; 2 Corinthians 2:3-4; 2 Corinthians 2:9; Winer, § 40, 5, b. 2. That ἔγραψα might refer to what follows, is not to be denied-the mind of the writer not looking, indeed, to what he is to write, but specially to the period of the reception of his letter by those for whom he is writing; as in the instance cited from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, x. § 1, in which the church of Smyrna say, ἐγράψαμεν ὑμῖν, which, occurring just after the opening salutation, refers to the subsequent sections of the epistle. Patres Apostol. p. 392, ed. Dressel. Compare Thucydides, Galatians 1:1; Poppo in loc. Similarly, too, we have ἔπεμψα, Acts 23:30. Compare ἔπεμψε, Xen. Anab. 1.9, 25, Galatians 2:4; Galatians 2:16, on the first of which places Kühner remarks, Aoristus positus est respectu habito temporis quo alter donum accipiebat. 2 Corinthians 9:3; Ephesians 6:22; Colossians 4:8. The phrase τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, occurring also in other epistles, shows that the apostle usually employed an amanuensis; and especially after letters had been forged and circulated in his name, he attached some autographic sentence at the close, frequently a benediction or salutation- ῞ο ἐστι σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ, 2 Thessalonians 3:17. Compare Romans 16:21-22; Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18. The Ambrosian Hilary notes in loc.: Ubi enim holographa manus est falsum dici non potest, ne forte circumventi excusarent de epistola, quasi aut falsa esset, aut non esset apostoli, nolentes se reprehendi. Augustine gives the meaning as cave ne quisquam sub nomine Epistolae ejus fallat incautos. While the body of the epistle was written by a secretary, the apostle subjoined with his own hand some concluding sentence; and it has been argued that such is the case in the epistle before us-an opinion held by Jerome, Grotius, Meyer, Bisping, Jowett, Lightfoot, and Bagge. Admitting the possibility of the exegesis, we are inclined to deny its probability. For, 1. What may be called the natural reference of ἔγραψα is to the previous portion of the epistle. The present γράφω appears to be used in such a case, and in reference to what is immediately under hand, as in 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Corinthians 14:37, 2 Corinthians 13:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, 1 John 2:12-13; Winer, 40, 5, b. 2. 2. Nor is there any indication of any breach, or pause, or change, as in Romans 16:24-25, and in 2 Thessalonians 3:17. Instead then of saying, with Lightfoot, that “at this point the apostle took the pen from his amanuensis,” we are inclined rather to say, that at this point the apostle pauses, and reading what he has written, the form of the handwriting struck him, and he adds abruptly the words of the verse before us. 3. The ὑμῖν comes in naturally, too, on the same supposition: mei pectoris apud vos index (Erasmus). He had not dictated the epistle to another, but he had written it himself; no one came between him and them, not even a secretary. 4. It would also be odd if a sentence calling attention to the handwriting should be the first specimen of it, and the asyndetic nature of the construction is in favour of the same view. 5. The τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί has in this way a special significance, from the fact that he had written all the epistle with his own hand, and not merely a few concluding clauses. Thus the entire letter seems to have been written by the apostle himself; such a deviation from his wont being adduced apparently as a proof of his earnest regard for them, and of his profound anxiety about them in the present perilous crisis. The “large characters” would convey to their minds, who knew him so well with his habits and infirmities, something perhaps which we may not be able to recognise. He puts himself to the trouble of framing those great characters from personal interest in them, and the document was meant as a circular for all the Galatian churches. See under ἀσθένεια, Galatians 4:13. Utinam, adds Pareus, αὐτόγραφον apostoli nobis habere et videre liceret. Compare what is said in Eusebius 6:24 of the ὁλόγραφοι ἐπισημειώσεις of Origen, and the note in Heinichen, vol. 2.221; and also another note to Galatians 5:20, do. p. 98. It is needless to inquire into the kind of letter, uncial or cursive, which the apostle employed on this occasion, or whether the material was papyrus (2 John 1:12) or vellum (2 Timothy 4:13)-the former being the more difficult to write upon, and that perhaps generally used (3 John 1:13).


Verse 12

Galatians 6:12. The apostle now shows up the hollowness of the Judaists, and utters his last warning against them. They were not conscientious in insisting on circumcision as indispensable to salvation. Their motive was to screen themselves from persecution, and to gain a good report among the Jews. The enmity of these Jews toward those of their brethren who made a Christian profession was greatly modified by the thought, that they had not only not ceased to observe the Mosaic ordinance themselves, but were actually forcing it on Gentile converts. This manifestation of zeal for the law was regarded as a compensation for their abandonment of the synagogue; any Gentiles who might submit to circumcision being apparently counted as so many Jewish proselytes-the successful proselytizers propitiating in this way their angry and vindictive kinsmen. But this their real motive they speciously veiled.

῞οσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί—“As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh.” The connection proposed by Alford is, “As my epistle, so my practice. My γράμματα are not εὐπρόσωπα, and I have no sympathy with those who desire to make a fair show in the flesh.” But such a connection is not very obvious, and it assumes a meaning of πηλίκοις which the epithet does not warrant. The verb occurs only here, but the form εὐπροσωπίσθησαν occurs in Symmachus as his rendering of נֵָעמוּ׃, Psalms 140:6; Orig. Hex. vol. i. p. 684, ed. Montfaucon, Paris 1713. But we have the adjective, Sophocles, Ajax, 1009, δέξαιτ᾿ ἂν εὐπρόσωπος; φίλον . . . εὐπρόσωπον καὶ καλόν, Aristoph. Plut. 976, in an ideal sense; and in Demosthenes, λόγους εὐπροσώπους καὶ μύθους, De Corona, vol. i. p. 176, ed. Schaefer. See other examples in Wetstein and Kypke in loc. There are also other compounds, as Aristoph. Nubes, 363; and Cicero has the clause, nec enim conquisitores φαινοπροσωπεῖν audent, Epist. ad Attic. 7.21, and he uses the verbal adjective, do. 14.22. See Rost und Palm, sub voce. The verb in the verse means to assume a specious appearance. It is not placere, as in the Vulgate, but rather that by which the pleasing is carried out. Chrysostom explains it by εὐδοκιμεῖν. The meaning is not in result very different from that given by the scholiast- ὅσοι θέλουσιν ἀρέσκειν ᾿ιουδαίοις.

As for ἐν τῇ σαρκί, 1. some refer it to fleshly things, specially to circumcision, as Beza, Winer, Olshausen, Schott. But this sense is too restricted and technical in itself, though it was also so far in the apostle's mind, as is plain from what is stated in the following clause. Michaelis takes it as the flesh of the Galatians; but this meaning would require ὑμῶν, and the σάρξ is the errorists' own sphere of pretentious display.

2. Others give the weak sense, apud homines-among or before men. The Greek fathers and others hold this view. It is indeed implied in the verb, but not expressed by this phrase.

3. Others again, as Meyer and Bagge, make it all but equivalent to σαρκικοὶ ὄντες, a sense which is only inferential.

4. The ἐν denotes the sphere in which the specious appearance shows itself, and σάρξ is still the unrenewed nature cropping out under its more special aspect of sensuousness and externalism. It was a sphere opposed to the Spirit in principle and result,-the sphere of the flesh, on which they had fallen back after having begun in the Spirit, and which still lusted against the Spirit, which negatived the freeness of justification, and which developing self into selfishness, and originating dark and pernicious “works,” severs its victim from the “fruits” of love, joy and beneficence. So far from “crucifying the flesh,” they cherished it, nay, wished to make a fair show in it,-to appear so well in what was specially opposed to the grace and genius of the gospel as to disarm the enmity of their Jewish brethren.

Of the party, larger or smaller in number, who made this fair show in the flesh, the apostle says-

οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι—“these are compelling you to be circumcised,”- οὗτοι emphatic: it is those who, or these and none other,-these are the very class who are forcing circumcision upon you; that is, their teaching, example, and influence amount to a species of moral compulsion. Comp. Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:14. The present denotes an action going on, not completed. Bernhardy, p. 375; Schmalfeld, § 54, 4. And all this for this end-

΄όνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ χριστοῦ μὴ διώκωνται—“only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” The indicative διώκονται, adopted by Tischendorf, has in its favour A, C, F, K, L, and many MSS. But it appears to be a blunder in writing ο for ω-no uncommon occurrence, as Romans 5:1 and in Galatians 6:9 of this chapter. The unsolecistic reading is supported by B, D, E, א, and many MSS.; and the order ἵνα μή of the Received Text is found in F, K, L, and some of the fathers, but the other order is found in A, B, C, D, א, in the Vulgate, Gothic, Syriac, and Jerome, etc. See A. Buttmann, Gr. § 139, 39.

For μόνον, see Galatians 2:10. They make a fair show in the flesh, only their purpose in doing so is a very selfish and unworthy one; it is to escape persecution. The dative is that of ground, or of proximate cause. “From signifying the αἴτιον or ὑφ᾿ οὗ, the dative naturally passed on to the expression of the αἰτία or δἰ ὅ-‘on account of which.’” Donaldson, § 451. Plato, Menex. p. 238, D, where three similar datives occur in succession. Winer, § 31, 6; Bernhardy, p. 102. Compare Romans 11:20; Romans 11:30, 2 Corinthians 2:13. On the other hand, Jerome, Luther, Tyndale, Grotius, Winer, De Wette, Conybeare, and Ewald take the dative as that of instrument-lest they should be persecuted with the cross of Christ: Ne participes fiant crucis suppliciorum Christi, h.e. qualia Christus nuper subiit. Winer, comparing 2 Corinthians 1:5 and Colossians 1:24. But the cross of Christ always with the apostle means more than mere suffering; it signifies the atoning death of the Son of God, as in Galatians 6:14 and in Galatians 5:11. The cross of Christ offered salvation without works of law of any kind; dispensed with the observance of Mosaic rites and ordinances as a condition of acceptance with God; gave welcome to the heathen without obliging them to become Jewish proselytes as a requisite preliminary step; and therefore the profession or preaching of it stirred up the malignant hostility of the Jews, as it destroyed their national distinction and pre-eminence, and placing the Gentile world on a level with them, desecrated in their imagination all which they and their fathers had revered and cherished for ages. To escape the enmity of the Jews so fiercely fighting for their institutions, the Judaists insisted on circumcising the Gentile converts, and thus attempted to propitiate their opponents by showing that, in attaching themselves to the gospel, they had not deserted the law,-nay, that they enjoined its observance on all who proposed to become members of the church, and were on this account enabled to carry Jewish influence into spheres of society which the synagogue had not in itself the means of reaching. But this syncretistic mixture of law and gospel veiled the cross and its salvation, so free and fitting to mankind without distinction of race or blood; so that their profession was deceptive, perilous in its consequences, and prompted and shaped by an ignoble and cowardly selfishness; it was a “fair show,” but only in the sphere of fleshly things, and assumed on purpose to avoid persecution. They wanted that earnest perception and belief of the one saving truth of which the cross is the centre, and that courage in holding it in its simplicity and purity against all hazards, which the cross inspires. In proof of his statement, that their motive is selfish and cowardly-the avoidance of persecution-the apostle adds-


Verse 13

Galatians 6:13. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν—“For not even do they who are getting themselves circumcised keep the law.” The reading περιτετμημένοι appears to be an evident correction-the reading of B, L, and the Claromontane Latin, and is adopted by Reiche, Meyer, Ewald, and Usteri. The other reading of the present participle has in its favour A, B, C, D1, F, א, several versions and fathers. The present participle middle describes the party as in continuous activity. To regard it as denoting those merely who had been circumcised, changes the prevailing nominative from the false teachers to their pupils. Is it then of the persons seduced into circumcision that the apostle says that they do not keep the law, though by the act of circumcision they took on them an obligation to obey it? Neander and Windischmann so understand it-that is, of persons born heathens induced by the Judaists to submit to circumcision, and becoming the organs and agitators of the Judaizing party. But may not born Jews, so loudly insisting on circumcision, also receive the appellation? Or does he not refer rather to the whole faction, circumcised itself and forcing circumcision on others, which, professing such respect for the initiatory rite, is by no means sincere, for it neglects the law, and does not carry out its obedience to the requisite extent? The οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι includes both aspects of these questions, but does not decide whether the clique was Jewish or heathen in origin, and it depicts the whole party as being busily engaged in carrying out their Judaizing tendencies, to whom circumcision was everything, to whom it was a distinctive watchword; they prided themselves on possession of it, and persistently pressed it on others. This is the meaning in effect contended for by Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Lightfoot, and Gwynne, who take the phrase in a substantive sense—“the circumcisers for themselves,” or “the circumcision party.” The participle thus loses its temporal reference. Winer, § 45, 7. Hilgenfeld quotes the Acts of Peter and Paul- οὗτοι οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι, § 63, ed. Tischendorf. While this is grammatically warranted, it is not strictly necessary. The participle characterizes the Judaists by their factional distinction. Hofmann makes it characterize Jews in general, the errorists being depicted in their Jewish quality, like ἀποθνήσκοντες characterizing men in general, or rather the Levites, in Hebrews 7:8, and different from θνητοί. But such a generalization is beyond the scope of the apostle's argument.

The wretched inconsistency of the Judaistic party is made apparent- οὐδὲ γὰρ, “not even they,” keep the law. The emphatic νόμος, though without the article, does not mean law as a principle (Lightfoot, Peile), nor moral obedience (Middleton, Greek Art. p. 306), nor the obligations arising out of the law (Gwynne); but the law of Moses given to the nation of the Jews-the code to which Gentile converts became debtors by their circumcision. The noun is often anarthrous, as being so definite and distinctive in itself. Winer, § 19, 1. See under Galatians 2:16, pp. 163-4. φυλάσσειν τὸν νόμον is to keep or obey the law; under a different aspect the νομοφύλαξ was one who guarded the law from infraction. Plato, Leg. 755, A. They do not observe the whole law, but make selections among its precepts, though the entire code is based on the one divine authority. It is true, as Theodoret remarks, that their distance from Jerusalem- πόῤῥω τῶν ῾ιεροσολύμων-made it impossible for them to keep the feasts, offer sacrifice, and abstain from ceremonial impurities; but the apostle speaks not of geographical inability, but of moral inconsistency. Nor is there such a latent thought in the phrase as that of Jerome, that the law cannot be fully obeyed, propter infirmitatem carnis. Nor is it the ceremonial law simply that the apostle refers to, for one peculiar Jewish inconsistency was the attention paid to ceremonial in preference to moral duties. Matthew 23:3-4. The apostle makes no sort of apology for them, he simply exposes the hollowness of their zeal for the law; and might he not have had in his eye such inconsistencies as he so sternly reprimands in Romans 2:17-24? Had they been actuated by honest zeal, they would strive to obey the whole law. They were actuated by another and a sinister motive-

᾿αλλὰ θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται—“but they desire to have you circumcised in order that they may glory in your flesh”- αὐτοί and ὑμετέρᾳ being in contrast. Wieseler, Ewald, and some others take σάρξ as in Galatians 6:12 -man's fleshly nature, of which suffering themselves to be circumcised was an outflow. Thus Bagge—“that they may glory in your carnality,” that you have yielded to their influence, and followed their example. But the supposed parallel in Galatians 6:12 is not to be insisted on; for the pronoun ὑμετέρα emphatic gives to σάρξ a distinctive reference, especially in so close a connection with περιτέμνεσθαι. Therefore it is to be taken in its literal significance-either corpus mutilatum (Borger, Winer, Meyer), or praeputium ipsum abscissum (Beza, Rückert). So too Theophylact, ἵνα ἐν τῷ κατακόπτειν τὴν ὑμετέραν σάρκα καυχήσωνται ὡς διδάσκαλοι ὑμῶν.

This clause is not opposed to the last clause of the twelfth verse. In the twelfth verse one motive is assigned to the false teachers-they spread their Judaistic notions that they might not be persecuted; here another motive is imputed to them-that they might glory over the circumcision of their converts. This last motive expounds the process by which the former works itself out. Their power to get their followers circumcised, or the circumcision of Gentile converts manoeuvred so effectively by them, was paraded before their fanatical countrymen, who could not persecute a party that in bringing men over to Christianity made them, and insisted on making them, at the same time Jewish proselytes; inconsistent and capricious relation to the law on the part of the agitators being overlooked and forgiven, in consideration of the primary honour they were doing to Moses under a profession of serving Christ. They might say, We are doing more for the spread of Judaism than its most rigid adherents, affirming of this and that one circumcised as the condition of his joining the church, hic quoque per me factus est Judaeus (Morus). The apostle gives the clique no credit for sincerity, as if they were acting like men under prejudice or partial enlightenment; he imputes to them cowardice, hypocrisy, and self-interestedness. Theirs was not a mistaken zeal, like that which characterized himself in the earlier part of his life: they were mean and mercenary in their opposition to the apostle, and utterly craven in soul in their relation to their Jewish brethren.


Verse 14

Galatians 6:14. ᾿εμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ—“But as for me, far be it to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” ᾿εμοί, emphatic in position, is the dative of ethical relation (Winer, § 31, 4; Thucydides, Galatians 2:7, and Arnold's note): ἐμοὶ δέ-but as far as regards me, in contrast with them and their καύχησις in the circumcision of their misguided converts. The σάρξ in which the Judaists wished to make a fair show is the representative element of a system directly and wholly opposed to that, of which σταυρός is the central principle and in which the apostle gloried. For μὴ γένοιτο, see Galatians 2:17. The formula is here followed by the infinitive, as in Sept. Genesis 44:7; Genesis 44:17, Joshua 22:29; Joshua 24:16, 1 Maccabees 9:10; 1 Maccabees 13:5; 1 Maccabees 13:9-10. It occurs also in a positive form, λαβεῖν μοι γένοιτο, Xen. Cyr. 6.3, 11; and ὧν ἔφη μηδενὶ γένοιτο πεῖραν ὑμῶν λαβεῖν, Polyb. 15.10, 4. The phrase “God forbid” really expresses the strong emotion or revulsion of feeling which interjects these decided words.

The Saviour is named “our Lord Jesus Christ”-the full name adding solemnity to the abjuration, and ἡμῶν giving believers like himself a community of interest in Him.

By σταυρός some understand sufferings endured for Christ, as in the phrase, taking up one's cross (Luther, Grotius, Koppe, Rosenmüller),-a view alike superficial and out of harmony with the context. The “cross,” as it is understood by the majority of interpreters, means the atoning death of the Son of God, in that “suffering, humiliation, and here more specially self-abnegation which is essentially involved in the idea of it” (Ellicott). It carries us back to σταυρῷ, with the same meaning, in Galatians 6:12. The Judaizers boasted of their influence, of their converts' conformity to the Mosaic ritual, of the unhappy compromise between law and gospel which they had so far effected, but which secured them from persecution on account of the cross. That cross was to them a σκάνδαλον in a variety of ways, especially as the symbol of a full and free salvation through faith, and without any ritualistic observance. But the cross in its expiatory sufferings was everything to the apostle; and in it, and only in it, would he glory.

δἰ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται, κἀγὼ κόσμῳ—“by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” The reading τῷ before κόσμῳ is doubtful-A, B, C1, D1, F, אomit it, while it is found in C3, D3, K, L, and many of the fathers. The before κόσμος has no authority, though τῷ might be omitted for the sake of uniformity, or overlooked on account of the previous γω. The antecedent to οὗ is matter of dispute and difficulty. Is it “by whom,” that is Christ, or “by which,” that is the cross? The Vulgate has per quem, and it is followed by Luther, Beza, De Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, Wieseler, Trana. The reference to σταυρῷ is given by Theodoret, and is adopted by Calvin, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, Bagge, Brown, Hofmann, Lightfoot, Jowett, Schmoller, Matthias. The English version has “by whom,” with “whereby” in the margin—“whereby” occurring also in Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan. Ellicott's argument, that “as the emphasized κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ just precedes, the relative will more naturally refer to these words,” is certainly not conclusive, for the relative does not always refer to the nearest antecedent; and the statement of Alford, that “the greater antecedent K. . I. X., coming after σταυρῷ, has thrown it into the shade,” may be met with a simple denial, for it may be replied that σταυρῷ has the primary place in the verse, and keeps that place as a prominent object in the apostle's mind till it is reproduced by its verb, the instrument followed by a reference to the act done upon it. Wieseler's argument for I. X. as antecedent is weak. “It is not indeed the cross itself,” he says, but it is “the personal Christ through the cross that is the source of all our salvation.” Nobody denies it, and the apostle uses the term in its connection with the personal Christ, for without Him and His death it is nothing. Windischmann thinks that if χριστοῦ were the antecedent, ἐν ᾧ would most naturally have followed it, according to the analogy of many other places, or συν ᾧ, as Lightfoot suggests after Galatians 2:20, Colossians 2:20. Nor is it the analogy of the New Testament to represent Christ as the agent of our crucifixion, or as our actual crucifier; for δἰ οὗ followed by ἐσταύρωται most naturally points out the effective cause, and cannot of itself mean, as Ellicott after Meyer gives it, “by whose crucifixion.” Besides, the object of the apostle, as the context shows, is to exalt the cross, which among these errorists was depreciated and shrunk from. After all, the sense is not materially different whichever view may be adopted. It was by the cross only in its connection with Christ that the world was crucified to the apostle, or it was only by his union with Christ in being crucified with Him that he was crucified to the world.

κόσμος wants the article, like a proper name, and rather anomalously, as it usually wants it after a preposition, or in regimen with a previous noun. Winer, § 19. There is intercrucifixion-the world has died to him, and he has died to the world. The “world” is not res et religio Judaica; it is the sphere of things in which the σάρξ lives and moves-that in which self and sense delight themselves: opposed to that sphere of things in which the πνεῦμα finds its fitting nutriment and exercise, and also to “the new creature” in the following verse. Nor is “the world” the same as the “elements of the world” in Galatians 4:3 (Bagge), but it is wider in significance- τὰ βιωτικὰ πράγματα (Theodoret). The term represents wealth, power, pleasure, indulgence, “lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life,”-all that draws humanity after it, which so many seem to crave as their only portion, and in which they seem to find their supreme delight. The world in this sense is opposed to God: “the friendship of this world is enmity with God,” James 4:4; 1 John 2:15. The apostle had long seen all this hostility and hollowness on the part of the world, and so he had done with it. It was crucified to him; it was a thing done to death for him, and he was done to death so far as regarded it. As Schott pithily puts it, alter pro mortuo habet alterum. Each had been nailed to the cross; each to other was dead. Christ's cross effected this separation. It was the result of neither morbid disappointment, nor of the bitter wail of “vanity of vanities,” nor of a sense of failure in worldly pursuits, nor of the persecutions he had undergone-scourging, imprisonment, hunger, thirst, fastings, and nakedness. By none of these things did he die to the world. But it was by his union with the Crucified One: death in Him and with Him was his death to the world, and the death of that world to him. See under Galatians 2:19-20, and Galatians 5:24.


Verse 15

Galatians 6:15. The reading varies: the common text begins, ἐν γὰρ χριστῷ ᾿ιησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει. The better reading is probably οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τι ἔστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία—“For neither doth circumcision avail anything nor uncircumcision.” ᾿ισχύει may be borrowed from Galatians 5:6, and it is not read in A, B, C, D1, F, א. The words ἐν γὰρ χριστῷ ᾿ιησοῦ are found in A, C, D, F, K, L, א. B reads οὔτε γάρ with several versions, and with Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine. The MSS. authority for the longer reading is probably overborne by the fact that it is taken from Galatians 5:6, and thus the shorter reading may be preferable. γάρ introduces a confirmatory explanation. For the first clause, see under Galatians 5:6.

᾿αλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις—“but a new creature.” κτίσις is sometimes active-the act of creation, Romans 1:20; or passive-what is created, either collectively, Romans 8:19, or individually as here and in 2 Corinthians 5:17. The phrase is borrowed probably from the בריה חדשׁהof the Rabbins, and bases itself on such language as Isaiah 43:18; Isaiah 65:17; Schoettgen, 1.308. Thus you have in Ephesians 2:15, “to make in himself of twain one new man;” Galatians 4:24, “put on the new man;” and in Romans 6:6, “our old man is crucified,” etc. This spiritual renewal springs out of living union to Christ, and it is everything. For it re-enstamps the image of God on the soul, and restores it to its pristine felicity and fellowship. It is not external-neither a change of opinion, party, or outer life. Nor is it a change in the essence or organization of the soul, but in its inner being-in its springs of thought and feeling, in its powers and motives-by the Spirit of God and the influence of the truth. “All old things pass away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17. This creation is “new,”-new in its themes of thought, in its susceptibilities of enjoyment, and in its spheres of energy; it finds itself in a new world, into which it is ushered by a new birth.


Verse 16

Galatians 6:16. καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχοῦσιν or στοιχήσουσιν—“And as many as are walking, or shall walk, by this rule.” For the present we have A, C1, D, F, Clarom., Syriac, Gothic, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. The future has in its favour B, C2, K, L, א, the Vulgate (secuti fuerint), Chrysostom, and Theodoret. As there was a temptation to change to the future, Ellicott holds by the present with Tischendorf. Alford says, on the other hand, “the correction has been to the present,” and adds, “no reason can be given why the future should be substituted.” So also Lightfoot and Meyer. The future is certainly the more difficult, and looks forward to the time when the epistle should be received, and they should read and understand what is meant by τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ. Besides, they were scarcely walking by it just now, but he hoped better things of them. The two σσ in the verb might also originate a various reading. The nominative ὅσοι, standing absolute for the sake of prominence, necessitates a broken construction. Winer, § 63, 1, d. The ὅσοι are in contrast to ὅσοι in Galatians 6:12, “as many as desire to make a fair show.” The κανών is in harmony with the verb, it is a line drawn; and the dative is that of norm, as in Galatians 5:16, “Walk by the Spirit.” The figure of walk falls so far into the background, and the idea remains of “course of life.” This rule is plainly that laid down in Galatians 5:15 : as many as live under the guidance of this great leading principle-that what is outer is nothing, and what is inner is everything; that to be a Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, matters not, is neither privilege nor barrier, while a spiritual change is inclusive of all blessing for eternity,-peace be on all those who adopt this norma vivendi.

εἰρήνη ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος—“peace be on them and mercy”-a benediction- εἴη, not ἐστίν or ἔσται, being understood. The position and order make the whole clause emphatic. The common words are χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, as in Galatians 1:3 -all blessing. See under Ephesians 1:2. Here the result is put first, not as if he did not intend to add any other blessing, but he emphasizes peace as being the distinctive and prominent theocratic gift suggested by the term Israel and in close connection with it. Peace and compassion, or mercy, now, and “mercy of the Lord in that day.” 2 Timothy 1:18. The blessing comes- ἐπί-on them from above. The prayer is probably a reminiscence of Psalms 125:5, “Peace shall be upon Israel,” and of Psalms 128:6, “Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.”

καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿ισραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ—“and on the Israel of God.” The meaning turns on the sense assigned to καί. If it be only copulative “and,” then the Israel of God is an additional body to the ὅσοι, and would mean Jewish believers. But if καί be explicative, signifying “to wit,” then the Israel of God is the same body with the ὅσοι, and is the whole believing community, comprising alike Jews and Gentiles. The one view, that the phrase means Jewish believers, is held by Ambrosiaster, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Schoettgen, Bengel, Schott, Matthies, De Wette, Brown, Ellicott, Trana, and apparently Jowett. The other opinion is held by names as great: Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Borger, Winer, Olshausen, Meyer, Sardinoux, Lightfoot, Alford. Justin Martyr twice calls believers generally ᾿ισραηλιτικὸν γένος; and affirming that Christ is the true Israel or wrestler, he calls all who flee for refuge through Him “the blessed Israel.” Dial. c. Tryph. §§ 11, 125, 135, Opera, ii. pp. 42, 418, 446, 446, ed. Otto.

Can καί be really explicative? Ellicott says that Meyer's examples do not seem conclusive (1 Corinthians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 8:12; 1 Corinthians 15:38), nor do they. Still it is to be found in this sense, which Winer (§ 53, 3) calls epexegetical, introducing the same thing under another aspect. But there is no case so peculiarly distinctive in sense as this would be. And,

1. In the quotations commonly adduced to prove this position, that Israel means believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, as Romans 2:28-29; Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 4:28; Galatians 4:31, it is Jews by blood who are spoken of or referred to in connection with the appellation.

2. The simple copulative meaning is not to be departed from, save on very strong grounds; and there is no ground for such a departure here, so that the Israel of God are a party included in, and yet distinct from, the ὅσοι.

3. The apostle is not in the habit of calling the church made up of Jews and Gentiles-Israel. Israel is used eleven times in Romans, but in all the instances it refers to Israel proper; and so do it and ᾿ισραηλίτης in every other portion of the New Testament. In the Apocalypse, the 144,000 sealed of Israel stand in contrast to “the great multitude which no man can number,” taken out of the Gentile or non-Israelitish races. Revelation 7:9. The “Israelite indeed” is also one by blood. John 1:47; comp. 1 Corinthians 10:18. The ὅσοι may not be Gentile believers as such, and opposed to Jewish believers, but the entire number who walk according to this rule; while Paul finds among them a certain class to whom his heart turns with instinctive fondness—“the Israel of God.” Jatho's distinction is baseless-the one party being those who, warned by this epistle, should renounce their error and walk according to this rule; and the other, those who had uniformly held the sacred and evangelical doctrine. It may be said indeed, on the one hand, that the apostle has been proving that the Jew, as a Jew, has no privilege above the Gentiles, that both Jew and Gentile are on a level, so that both believing Jews and Gentiles may therefore be called Israel. It may be replied, however, that the apostle never in any place so uses the name, never gives the grand old theocratic name to any but the chosen people.

4. To the apostle there were two Israels—“they are not all Israel which are of Israel,”-and he says here, not Israel κατὰ σάρκα, but “the Israel of God,” or the true believing Israel; his own brethren by a double tie-by blood, and especially by grace. Was it unnatural for the apostle to do this, especially after rebuking false Israel-the wretched Judaizers-who certainly were not the Israel of God?


Verse 17

Galatians 6:17. τοῦ λοιποῦ, κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω—“Henceforth let no one cause troubles to me.” The phrase τοῦ λοιποῦ occurs only here, and is simply the genitive of time, and not the same as λοιπόν or τὸ λοιπόν, which also occurs. It means at any time in the future- τὸ λοιπόν signifying simply “during the future.” Hermann, ad Viger. p. 706. Let no one cause me troubles or annoyance, doubting his apostolical authority, neutralizing his preaching or misrepresenting its import, and obliging him to write again in so large characters with his own hand. His apostolical authority he had asserted in full, striking, and unqualified terms in the first chapter; and he has it at this point also especially in view, as he adds-

᾿εγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ ᾿ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω—“for I bear in my body the marks of Jesus.” The Received Text inserts κυρίου before ᾿ιησοῦ on authority which, though good, is not, owing to other variations, free from suspicion. ᾿εγώ emphatic, “it is I who,” not ἔχω, but βαστάζω, “not I have, but I carry them” (Chrysostom). The στίγματα are the brands printed upon slaves-and sometimes on captives and soldiers-burnt into them, to indicate their owners. Herod. 7.233; Revelation 7:3; Revelation 13:16; Revelation 14:1; Revelation 14:9; Revelation 14:11; Vegetius, De Re Militari, 2.5; Spencer, De Leg. Heb 20:1; Deyling, Observat. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 423; Wetstein in loc. Slaves attached to temples were tattooed, bore brands upon them. Herod. 2.113; Lucian, De Dea Syr. § 59. This practice in the worship of Cybele might be common in Galatia, though there is little probability that the apostle is referring to it. The genitive ᾿ιησοῦ is that of possession, not that of author (Gomar, Rückert). He bore on his body the brands of Christ his Master. Indelible marks on his person showed that he belonged to Jesus as His servant. The meaning is not, such marks as Jesus Himself bore (Morus, Borger). Webster and Wilkinson admit the possibility of an allusion to John 20:25. But such an idea is foreign to the simple statement. The marks of the crucifixion are said to have been borne by St. Francis; and his biographer Bonaventura addresses him in words similar to those of this verse. The wounds are said to have been reproduced in other persons. Windischmann renders the words correctly, and says that the stigmatization of St. Francis has no connection with the real meaning of this clause, though he proceeds to defend the possibility and value of such a phenomenon. Bisping rejects also the idea that the apostle's stigmata were in any way connected with the “five wounds,” especially as tradition is silent about it. The reader may see a long Catholic note on St. Francis in the commentary of a-Lapide, and as long a Protestant note in that of Crocius. Nor is the meaning, marks borne on account of Christ (Grotius, Flatt, Rosenmüller). The marks are ἐν τῷ σώματι. His body bore such marks of suffering that no one could mistake his owner. 2 Corinthians 11:23. Any allusion to circumcision as one kind of στίγμα is not to be thought of. The warning, then, is not, “Let no man henceforward trouble me, for I have enough to bear already”-the view of Bengel and Winer; but, let no man impugn or doubt my authority,-the στίγματα of Jesus which I carry are the seal of my apostleship, the visible vouchers of my connection with Jesus. The Judaists insisted on circumcision that they might avoid persecution, but he had suffered many things: the stoning must have disfigured him, the scourge must have left its weals on his back-cicatrices plagarum (Ambros.),-and the fetter its scars on his limbs. The idea of Chrysostom, that he prided himself in those marks as a “trophy and regal ensign,” is not suggested by the solemn mandate of the previous clause. Nor can the notion of Chandler be at all accepted, that the words conveyed a threatening of spiritual punishment to his enemies, as though he had said, “Be it at their peril to give me any further trouble or disturbance on this account.”

Then comes the parting benediction-


Verse 18

Galatians 6:18. ῾η χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί. ᾿αμήν—“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.” χάρις is invoked to be, not μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν or μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, but μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. Philemon 1:25; 2 Timothy 4:22. These two passages show that no special stress is to be laid on the phrase here. πνεῦμα is not opposed here in any way to σάρξ, as in some previous clauses of the epistle (Chrysostom, Beza, Rückert, Usteri, Schott). There are no salutations appended, perhaps because the epistle is an encyclical one, meant for believers throughout the province. The πνεῦμα is the higher nature, the region of divine operation in renewal and sanctification-distinct from the ψυχή by which it is united to the σῶμα. See Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man, Clark, Edin. 1868; Delitzsch, Psychologie. And the last word ἀδελφοί is unusually placed-placed last on purpose. After all his sorrow, amazement, censure, and despondency, he parts with them in kindness; after all the pain they had cost him, yet were they dear to him; and ere he lifts his hand from the parchment, it writes, as a parting love-token- ἀδελφοί.

 


Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.

Bibliography Information
Eadie, John. "Commentary on Galatians 6:4". John Eadie's Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jec/galatians-6.html.

Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, November 17th, 2019
the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
ADVERTISEMENT
Commentary Navigator
Search This Commentary
Enter query in the box below
ADVERTISEMENT
To report dead links, typos, or html errors or suggestions about making these resources more useful use our convenient contact form
Powered by Lightspeed Technology