Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Galatians 5:13 - 5:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
G. Extended exhortation to the Qalatians, instead of turning back from Faith to works of the Law, to give activity to their Faith (in a right understanding of Christian freedom) by ministering Love, as the best fulfilment of the Law
1. More general—reverting to the principle of ethical opposition between Spirit and Flesh, in a discussion, partly didactic
(Gal_5:13-24)
(Gal_5:16-24.—Epistle for 14th Sunday after Trinity)
With this verse a new section, of course, begins, but it is incorrect to begin here, as is variously done, a second or third main division. Above all it is not to be supposed that the Apostle henceforth addresses himself to those Galatian Christians who had held fast the principle of evangelical freedom; on the contrary he has throughout the whole Epistle the same individuals in mind, namely, those led astray by Judaism, and his present exhortation also is immediately connected with the leading thought of the Epistle. How nearly? This he, himself, plainly sets forth in the first place with ìüíïí ìÞ : the energetic admonition to the maintenance of freedom receives its needful complement in the warning against misuse of the same, by the reference to its ethical character.—But this is unquestionably only one side, hardly more than the mere point of attachment. Paul gives his exhortation to serviceable love not merely as a precaution in case the Galatians, perceiving the inadmissibleness of the legal position, should desire to return to the freer one, but this also belongs, together with the entire explication which it receives in the following verses, to the polemics against their present erroneous view. To that legalism, which he combatted, as slighting faith, and surrendering Itself into false bondage, he opposes as the truth, “the fulfilling of the law” by the activity of faith in love (comp. Gal_5:6), where we make ourselves servants, more generally in a walk by the Spirit, in which one is free from the law in the very “fulfilling” of it (Gal_5:14; Gal_5:18; Gal_5:23). He is the more earnest in holding this up to them, because the Galatians especially, in spite of (or on account of) their legal zeal, were wanting in this fulfilment of the law through a walk by the Spirit, a fulfilment which obliges Christians also (comp., especially Gal_5:15). The same persons who wanted to impose the law upon themselves, were content to be lacking in that which is the heart of the law; those who wished to make themselves servants to the law, would not be servants to one another. It was therefore of moment, to exclaim to these: Behold, what you need, is not in any way to turn yourselves away from faith, as if this were too little, to the law, but simply to make faith active through a walk in the Spirit, in love. Comp. Gal_5:6, and also chap. 6, where the more detailed exhortations follow. We thus see plainly how impossible it is to disconnect this section from the preceding one, how on the other hand it concurs with the entire polemics of the Apostle, nay, how these find in it their true, convincing culmination.—It is of course incorrect to oppose this section, as hortatory, to the preceding part of the Epistle, as didactic, for this reason that the preceding part also includes exhortation (especially ver.1); this however was dogmatic, and now comes ethical exhortation. Unquestionably therefore this section might with some propriety be called the Ethical part, in distinction from the Doctrinal; but if by this were meant, as commonly, that Paul now leaves the controversy concerning the relation of the Law to Faith, and, having no longer in mind the defection of the Galatian churches, merely proceeds to exhort to a walk of Christian morality, with reference to ethical short-comings, this too must be deemed incorrect according to what has been remarked. Moreover, even if such a distinction into a dogmatic and an ethical part is not unwarranted in fact, it is at all events not exact in form; this section cannot be formally contrasted with all that precedes. For certainly the discourse proceeds without interruption; Paul is speaking hortatively to the Galatians (especially from ver.1 on), but on the ground of the doctrinal exposition, and now he merely gives a sudden ethical turn to this exhortation, bringing, as has been remarked, the whole to an appropriate conclusion.
Gal_5:14. For the whole law is fulfilled.—It is not easy to determine either the meaning of this clause, or its connection with what precedes. The first explanation, which offers itself on account of ἐí ἑíὶ ëüãῳ , taken ðëçñïῦôáé as= ἀíáêåöáëáéïῦôáé , comprehenditur, as Rom_8:9. [So Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, et al.—R.] But this must be rejected as lexically untenable. Besides with the reading [now generally adopted], ðåðëÞñùôáé it becomes at once incorrect.—As little does íüìïí ðëçñ . have here the same sense as in Mat_5:17=to bring out, to make evident the deeper sense, the ideal substance in distinction from the literal form. Doubtless it is not a ðëçñïῦí in the doctrine that is here in question, and in reality, if ðëçñ . were taken in this sense, the explanation would come back again to the one already disapproved, namely, that the commandment of love to our neighbor is the substance of ὁ ðᾶò íüìïò , since that which is substance, in another aspect, is also foundation. Ðëçñïῦí is to be understood of fulfilment by deed, conformity, satisfacere legi. [Ellicott: “The perfect ðåðëÞñùôáé suitably points to the completed and permanent act.”—R.] It is peculiar then, no doubt, that this is said to be in one word, ἐí ἑíὶ ëüëῳ , and this to be regarded as an abbreviated expression for; By conformity to the one word, precept (from Lev_19:18), immediately follows: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.—[Meyer: “Neighbor is for the Christian, who rightly (Mat_5:17) applies this Mosaic command to himself, his fellow-Christian (comp. Gal_5:13, ἀëëÞëïéò ), as for the Jew it was fellow-Jew; but how little this is to be taken as excluding any one whatever, is shown by the whole spirit of Christianity, which finds its most beautiful expression in the case of the Samaritan (Luke 10); Paul himself was such a Samaritan toward Jew and Gentile.”—R.] But how far does Paul declare obedience to the one commandment of love to our neighbor, an obedience to the whole law? Not in the sense in which Love is styled ðëÞñùìá íüìïõ (Rom_13:8-10). Nearly related as the two passages appear to be, they must by no means be confounded. For in Romans 13 it is expressly stated what is to be understood by íüìïò , namely, the individual commandments of the Decalogue which respect conduct towards our neighbor, and love is called the ðëÞñùìá of those, because, whoever has the dispositions of love, and in truth only such a one, will of course fulfil also the duties of love commanded by the law. But that “the whole law” in this passage is not to be arbitrarily turned into “second table of the Decalogue,” nor even interpreted generally = Moral law, is plain; on the contrary, it doubtless signifies nothing else than: the whole Mosaic law. But in the second place it is also clear, that Paul cannot mean to say, that in love to our neighbor is found the pledge of the fulfilment of the whole law. For this latter Paul has not at all in mind, it is precisely the opposite that he is aiming at; his meaning is, that on him who does this there is no future requirement made in respect to observance of the law, that from this he is free. The sense of ðåðëÞñùôáé can therefore only be: He is to be regarded as if he had fulfilled the law, and therefore the law can exact nothing further of him. By no means therefore is the commandment of love to our neighbor regarded by Paul as the summary of the whole law; this would be entirely incorrect. He will rather say this, that if any one fulfils this, all the rest comes no more into account; of course, with reference to his emphatic demonstration in what precedes, that the law has lost its binding force for the believer. If the believer now does not take this faith to be a dead one, but quickens it through love, he has done all; there can be of further claims of the law upon him no mention, but he ought on the other side to have and exercise love, for only then can he regard himself as free from the claims of the whole land besides, only then, in fact, is he a believer.—If it is asked how Paul could view the whole law as fulfilled in love to our neighbor, especially without even mentioning love to God, this question is mostly raised with the understanding that he means to designate the commandment of love to our neighbor as the summary, or the fulfilment of it as the condition and principle of the fulfilment of the whole law; and if he meant it so, his assertion must unquestionably be declared unwarranted. (Where the former is in question, Jesus in Mat_21:34 sq. places the two commandments together; and where the latter, Paul, Romans 13., restricts the law to the second table.) But this understanding of his proposition has been already designated as incorrect. He doubtless means to say: Of him who has love to his neighbor the law can exact nothing more. The question, rightly stated, is therefore only this: How could Paul attribute to love towards our neighbor so eminent a position, that he designates him who should fulfil it as free from all else? Must he not also, nay, above all, demand of the believer a fulfilling of the commandment of love to God, and could he, except on condition that both were found in a man, esteem it equivalent to a fulfilment of the whole law? As to this it is simply to be remarked, that (1) he conceives Faith as essentially comprehending love to God, and (2) cannot conceive love to our neighbor without love to God, and therefore in demanding the former from Christians, he of course does not mean to release them from the latter. He does not, however, mention love to God, for his exhortation has not respect to a merely inward fulfilling of the law, belonging to the disposition, but to that fulfilling of the law which comes into manifestation, and shows itself forth in the walk, to the true ethical conduct of the life, and especially of the common life, and this rests upon love to our neighbor. Therefore this only is made the subject of discourse.—If now the Apostle uses this proposition to establish the preceding exhortation ( ãÜñ ), this is not in the sense that he means thereby to represent the “serving by love” (Gal_5:13), as a divine duty because commanded by the law; after he has previously denied so decidedly that Christians are under the law, he cannot make the fact that it is commanded in the law a motive for the exercise of love. The principal emphasis lies rather upon ðᾶò and ðåðëÞñ ., on the circumstance that through serving love the whole law is fulfilled, in the sense given=enough has been done for the law, i. e., negatively, they are therewith absolved from the rest of the law. Therefore nearly=Love one another: for therewith the whole ground of controversy, respecting the observance of the law, whether this or that precept is to be observed, is taken away. The whole sentence, therefore, serves rather to strengthen his exhortation than to give, strictly speaking, a reason for it. The commandment of love to our neighbor, although expressed by a citation from the law (Leviticus): ἀãáðÞóåéò ôὸí ðë . ê . ô . ë , does not therefore come into consideration as a particular commandment of the law, as if Paul from the other commandments, as being abrogated, excepts this one as remaining in force; only the commandment to exercise love towards our neighbor remains in fact valid for the Christian (and if it is done, the law has no further claim upon him); but to him it is a commandment not on account of the law, but because he is a Christian, on account of his faith in Christ, or because (Gal_5:6) “in Christ” alone “faith working through love” “availeth anything.” Into the question how far the faith in Christ obliges to love, Paul does not enter, but he then goes on to show that this love is the operation of the Spirit, which faith brings.—While the proposition serves primarily to commend the exhortation, and while such an argument must have had the more weight for this end with those zealous for the law, yet of course at the same time it deals a blow against this zeal for the law, and exhibits its emptiness; for all the rest, the many observances are, according to it, purely superfluous; with the one thing. Love to our neighbor, all is done. [Meyer “Paul looked down from a lofty spiritual level, and saw all other commands of the law subordinated to the law of love, that whoever had fulfilled this command, must be treated as having fulfilled the whole.” The fact that Paul chose this particular expression, “the whole law is fulfilled,” places his teaching in opposition to antinomian tendencies, just as the Sermon on the Mount shows Christ’s position to the law, viewed as a purely ethical rule of life. “The whole law,” i. e., the Mosaic law, regarded in this light, was fulfilled in the case of the believer by this love to his neighbor; for the whole law of Moses had an ethical purpose, which purpose is now fulfilled to its full extent only when the believer, because he as a believer, is living “by the Spirit.” has that temper of heart to God, which enables him to obey this “one word.”—Schmoller insists too strongly on the idea that “all the rest are superfluous.” It is doubtful whether this is implied even in Gal_5:18. The Doctrinal Notes show his meaning more clearly.—R.]
Gal_5:15. But if ye bite and devour one another.—This is = if ye intend of serving one another through love, do just the opposite: bear ill will towards and hate one another, and let this come into act, plot mischief against one another, yea, seek to destroy one another; something like this is the sense of these strong expressions borrowed from ravening beasts. Then take heed, adds Paul with incisive words, that the result be not the opposite of what you intend, that ye be not consumed of one another.—Each might be disposed to supplant the other, but in the end it will come to this, all will be wasted away. The sentence thus coöperates per contrarium to the establishment of Gal_5:12. The explanation: “your Christian community will go to pieces,” I am inclined to regard as too special. It is not improbable, indeed, that this influence of the Judaizers occasioned divisions among the Galatians, and threw them into controversies upon the question of the law; yet I should not be disposed to refer this äÜêíåéí êáὶ êáôåóèßåéí so definitely to that, as is commonly done. For this is at least intimated nowhere else in the Epistle.
Gal_5:16. Now I say, walk by the Spirit.—With ëÝãù äÝ Paul conducts his exhortation to serve one another by love (agreeably to the warning already given in the first half of Gal_5:13.) back to a more general, fundamental exhortation to walk by the Spirit (for in the Spirit he sees the Agent that leads to love), and then designates Spirit and Flesh as the two ethical principles opposite to one another, expressing themselves in opposite workings.— Ðíåýìáôéðåñéð . Dative of instrument; properly: walk through the Spirit, so that He is (not the path in which—Wieseler, but) the power, through which they walk= ðíåýìáôé ἀãüìåíïé , Gal_5:18. [The dative may be instrumental, as in Gal_5:18, but it is better, perhaps, with Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, to consider it a normal dative, that by which, according to which they are to walk (almost = êáôὰ ðíåῦìá ), for the reason that “Spirit” is contrasted in this passage not merely with “flesh,” but also with “law,” and the double contrast is best brought out thus, since under the idea of the normal dative, that of rule or direction is included. Wieseler brings out the same meaning, but takes the dative as instrumental.—R.] Ðíåῦìá is here also doubtless =The Holy Ghost; it is this, that overcomes the óÜñî . He enters, it is true, into the hearts of believers, and works only by impelling and determining the walk, as He who dwells in the believers. But yet ðíåῦìá is not on this account=the new disposition of the believer himself, sanctified by the Spirit, but remains ever distinct from the individual human spirit as Divine, transcending it. [Meyer adopts this view, and remarks that the absence of the article is not against it. “The distinction affirmed by Harless, that ôὸ ðíåῦìá means the objective Holy Ghost, ðíåῦìá without the article the subjective, cannot be justified, since ðíåῦìá has the nature of a proper name, and always, even when it dwells and reigns in the human spirit, remains objective, as the Divine ðíåῦìá specifically distinct from the human (Rom_7:16).”—R.]
And ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.—We are led to construe this clause, as one of result, both by grammatical considerations ( êáß with ïὐ ìÞ and the subjunctive or future after an imperative has this force commonly) and by the context. In “walk by the Spirit” he indicates the means of victory over “the lust of the flesh.” [On the grammatical point urged above, see the note of Ellicott in loco. He claims that the clause might be imperative, but “as there is no distinct instance of such a construction in the New Testament, and still more as the next verses seem more naturally to supply the reasons for the assertion than for the command, it seems best to adopt the future translation.” (So E. V., Meyer also in 4th ed., and above.) This future with ïὐ ìÞ is strong: “shall in no wise” (Lightfoot).—On the word “flesh,” see Doctrinal Note 4.—R.]
Gal_5:17. For.—This introduces, in the first place, simply the proof of a “lust of the flesh” (Gal_5:16)=of such an one I speak, for the flesh lusteth. Paul does not stop, however, but is led further to the antagonistic idea ἐðéèõìåῖí Ðíåῦìá .—Against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.—Each principle combats the other, and seeks to wrest the dominion from it, and on the other hand to place itself in the possession of this. [It is scarcely proper to supply the verb ἐðéèõìåῖí with Ðíåῦìá , but the Apostle’s meaning is obvious. Lightfoot suggests “strives,” “fights against.”—R.] This is explained by what follows: these are opposed the one to the other, that ἴíá =with the design, that ye may not do what things ye would, bring into effect precisely the desire which you have admitted into your will. ἋἂíèÝëçôå is neither to be restricted to the good nor to the evil will. The inquiry whether the two powers in the cases in question, attain the object desired by them or not, is not proposed here, since the only purpose is to bring vividly to view the irreconcilable antagonism of their tendencies. Wieseler. Ἵíá is therefore not at all to be understood in an ecbatic sense. [Alford: “The necessity of supposing an ecbatic meaning for ἵíá in theology is obviated by remembering, that with God results are all purposed.—R.] The contest moreover is by no means to be conceived as an interminable one. The context shows that on the contrary there is expected of the Christian a complete surrendering of himself in order to be actuated by the one principle, the Spirit, and a refusal to give way to the lust of the flesh, whose motions, it is true, must still be experienced. The passage therefore, is entirely different from Rom_7:17 sq. [The reference is to “the free-will in its ordinary acceptation, subject only to this necessary and obvious limitation, that this conflict must be only predicated in its full extent, of the earlier and more imperfect stages of a Christian course. The state of the true believer is conflict, but with final victory.” Ellicott.—R.]
Gal_5:18 then speaks of the victoy of this principle: But if ye be led by the Spirit=if the combat becomes a victory, and that on the right side; if the ἐðéè . of the ðí . becomes an ἄãåéí . [Bengel: ubi vero spiritus vincit, acie res decernitur. The dative here is instrumental.—R.]—Ye are not under the law.—This is according to Gal_5:14; there it was only stated specially of love, here generally of the “being led by the Spirit,” which correspondence makes evident, how Paul regards its relation to the exercise of love; the two are to him essentially one, that is, the former is the principle of the latter. What in Gal_5:14 is called somewhat enigmatically a fulfilling of the whole law, is here simply and literally described as “a not being under the law.” The latter is essentially identical with the former; the sense is: The law then can exact nothing more of you; implying naturally: for you are then in the right ethical condition beseeming the Christian, even though not carrying out every detail prescribed in the law. But if you—is the thought implied—are not led by the Spirit, you are then still under obligation to the law; for you are then in fact not yet all in Christ. [Meyer: “Through the impelling power of the Spirit you find yourselves in such a moral condition of life (‘newness of life,’ Rom_6:4) that the law has no power to find fault with you, to condemn and punish you. This explanation is the only correct one according to Gal_5:23 : and this freedom is the true moral freedom from the law.” So Ellicott, who remarks: “The more obvious conclusion might have seemed, ‘ye are not under the influence of the flesh,’ but as the law was confessedly the principle which was ordained the influences and works of the flesh, the Apostle (in accordance with the general direction of his argument) draws his conclusion relatively rather to the principle, than to the mere state and influences against which that principle was ordained.” It must be borne in mind that Paul’s use of the phrase “under the law” usually regards the law as a judge and pedagogue; here the Christian is viewed as one led by the Spirit, and thus taken from “under the law,” but so led according to the law, as a guide to our new life of gratitude, that of the fruit of the Spirit it is ever true “against such there is no law” (Gal_5:23).—R.]
Gal_5:19-21. Now the works of the flesh are manifest.— ÖáíåñÜ , evident=plainly conspicuous and therefore of course undeniable. This öáíåñÜ is the main point, and therefore placed first. For Paul wishes to furnish the Galatians inducement for being “led by the Spirit,” and therefore he not only calls the works of the flesh “evident,” but moreover carefully enumerates them, portrays them before their eyes (puts them in the pillory); so that every one may know, what conversely belongs to being led by the Spirit, that one may not practice such things, if he will be one led by the Spirit and not under the law. The positive side is then given Gal_5:22 sq.—That Paul does not mean to say that all of these things are found among the Galatians, is easily understood.—“Works of the flesh”=“that which is brought to pass when the flesh, i. e., the sinful human nature, and not the Holy Ghost, is the actuating principle.” Meyer. Therefore naturally many sins are here enumerated, which are by no means carnal sins in the common acceptation, but rather in a very special sense sins against love, agreeably to the context. There are four classes: 1. Lust ( ðïñí .— ἀóåëã .) 2. Idolatry ( åἰäùëïë ., öáñì .), 3. Contentiousness ( ἔ÷èñáé — öüíïé ). 4. Intemperance ( ìÝèáé — êῶìïé ). The third class is treated the most in detail. [While we must not regard this specification as a charge against the Galatians in particular, it is extremely improbable that the Apostle would not choose such sins as most “easily beset” his readers. Lightfoot very properly observes: “From early habit and constant association a Gentile church would be exposed to sins of the first two classes. The third would be a probable consequence of their religious dissensions, inflaming the excitable temperament of a Celtic people. The fourth seems to be thrown in to give a sort of completeness to the list, though not unfitly addressed, to a nation whose Gallic descent perhaps disposed them too easily to these excesses.”—R.]—Uncleanliness, ἀêáè ., lustful impurity in general after the special fornication, ðïñíåßá ; wantonness, ἀóåëã ., lustful wantonness. [Lightfoot: “The same three words occur together in a different order, 2Co_12:21. The order here is perhaps the more natural: ðïñíåßá a special form of impurity; ἀêáèáñóßá uncleanness in whatever guise, ἀóÝëãåéá an open reckless contempt of propriety. A man may be ἀêÜèáñôïò and hide his sin; he does not become ἀóåëãÞò until he shocks public decency.” As the reference in the New Testament is usually to sensuality, “wantonness” is the best rendering, “standing as it does, by the double meaning which it has, in remarkable ethical connexion with this word” ἀóÝëãåéá . See Trench, Syn. New Testament § xvi.—R.]—The transition from the first class to the second is easily found in the fact that with idolatrous worship many forms of unchastity were connected; but idolatry is not on that account to be considered as a species of lustful indulgence. [Yet the two forms of sin are so frequently joined together in the New Testament and the latter is so common a metaphor for the former in the Old Testament, as to suggest a more intimate connection than the simple fact that sensual excesses usually accompanied idolatrous worship. This fact must be regarded as an indication of some underlying affinity.—R.]— Öáñìáêåßá , here apparently, in juxtaposition with idolatry=Sorcery, not poisoning, [Lightfoot: “ ‘Idolatry,’ the open recognition of false gods, ‘sorcery,’ the secret tampering with the powers of evil. It is a striking coincidence, if nothing more, that öáñìáêåῖáé were condemned by a very stringent canon of the council held at Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, about A. D. 314.”—R.]—Third class: the substantives up to áἱñÝóåéò have reference to dissension, the first four as shown in individual conduct, among which however, jealousy, æῆëïò and wrath, èõìïß , refer to the inner aspect, the source. [The latter is rendered “displays of wrath” by Ellicott, and thus referred to outward manifestations, which seems preferable, since the plural is used, serving to denote the concrete form of the abstract sin (so too the plurals which follow); were the reference to the source the singular were more appropriate. See Trench, Syn. New Testament, § xxvii., on the precise meaning of the word.—R.] The three following, caballings, dissensions, factions refer to the dissension of bodies of men.—Envyings, murders follow these, evidently named together mainly on account of the paronomasia, since öèüíïò would otherwise belong with æῆëïò ; “murders,” however, fittingly closes the list as the culmination of discord. Besides, the two are perhaps put in juxtaposition with reference to the concurrence of envy and murder in the first murder, comp. 1Jn_3:12. [Lightfoot: “A principle of order may be observed in the enumeration: 1. ἔ÷èñáé , a general expression opposed to Üãἀðç , breaches of charity in feeling or in act; from this point onward the terms are in an ascending scale: 2. ἔñéò ‘strife,’ not necessarily implying self-interest; 3. æῆëïò ‘rivalry’ in which the idea of self-assertion is prominent: 4. èõìïὶ ‘wraths,’ a more passionate form of ἔñéò ; 5. ἐñéèåῖáé ‘factious cabals,’ a stronger development of æῆëïò : 6, 7. hostility has reached the point where the contending parties separate; such separation is either temporary ( äé÷ïóôáóßáé ‘divisions’), or permanent ( áἱñÝóåéò ‘sects, heresies’): 8. öèüíïé , a grosser breach of charity than any hitherto mentioned, the wish to deprive another of what he has; 9. öüíïé , the extreme form which hatred can take, the deprivation of life.”—On drunkenness, revellings, Ellicott remarks: “the latter is the more generic and inclusive, to which the former was the usual accompaniment.”—R.]—In order to brand still further “the works of the flesh,” and to restrain from them, he points moreover to the punishment decreed against them, in words which are meant to express: that however often one might come to speak of them, he would always have to render the same judgment, and to express moreover that this judgment might be rendered in advance with perfect distinctness.— Ðñï in ðñïëÝãù and ðñïåῖðïí =before it comes; the preterite in ðñïåῖðïí =during my presence among you.—Shall not inherit the kingdom of God.—Just as in 1Co_6:9 sq.; Eph_5:5, of course with the pre-supposition: If no conversion intervenes.
Gal_5:22-23. After the negative exposition, Paul now states explicitly in what the being led by the Spirit consists, or, more particularly, reveals itself.—The fruit of the Spirit.— Êáñðὸò ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò , essentially the same as ἔñãá , “works,” Gal_5:19 : That which comes to pass, which is brought into effect, when the Holy Ghost is the impelling principle. But in what follows it is only qualities that are mentioned, and not works, and so of course ἔñãá was not appropriate. And certainly it is not unintentional, that Paul in the first place names only the inward “fruit of the Spirit,” consisting in the disposition of the soul, for the reason that the Spirit primarily and principally changes and must change the inward disposition. When this is done, there is a genuine leading by the Spirit, living by the Spirit, which then finds external manifestation also in a walking by the Spirit.—The singular êáñðüò also is significant, “proceeding from the conception of the inward unity and ethical continuity of all that the Spirit works.” As “Spirit” in this connection is conceived as the principle from which serving love proceeds, the enumeration of precisely these virtues is easily explicable. That many things besides are effected by the Spirit, does not need to be said. At the head stands Love, as the most general, and at the same time the chief virtue of Christians (comp. Gal_5:13-14). Gal 10: ×áñÜ , one is inclined to take as Joy with the brethren, opposed to æῆëïé , öèüõïé . It is no objection that this incidental idea is not contained in the word itself; the connection might easily indicate in what particular sense ÷áñÜ is here to be taken. Yet the explanation of it as the inward joyfulness of the Christian in the consciousness of the love of God may also be justified, as this too stands in close connection with his conduct towards his brethren, and is incompatible with an unloving behavior. At all events the following words from åἰñÞíç to ðñáàôçò belong together, as designating the fruits of “love,” unselfish love; åἰñÞíç therefore denotes peace with others, ìáêñïèõìßá patience under injuries, ÷ñçóô . gracious, friendly character, ἀãáè . is nearly related to this: Benevolence (Luther); not so generally as, good dispositions (the special meaning is quite frequent in the Septuagint): ðßóôéò here of course not=justifying faith, but either trustfulness, as opposed to mistrust, or faithfulness.—Finally, temperance, ἐãêñÜôåéá , is added in antithesis particularly to the sins of lust and intemperance (Gal_5:19-21).—[Here again Lightfoot is excellent: “The difficulty of classification in this list is still greater than in the case of the works of the flesh. Nevertheless some sort of order may be observed. The catalogue falls into three groups of three each. The first of these comprises Christian habits of mind in their more general aspect, ‘love, joy, peace.’ (The fabric is built up story upon story. Love is the foundation, joy the superstructure, peace the crown of all.) The second gives special qualities affecting a man’s intercourse with his neighbor, ‘long-suffering, kindness, beneficence.’ (This triad is again arranged in an ascending scale; ìáêñïèõìßá is passive, ‘patient endurance under injuries inflicted by others;’ ×ñçóôüôçò , neutral, ‘a kindly disposition towards one’s neighbors’ not necessarily taking a practical form; ἀãáèùóýíç , active, ‘goodness, beneficence’ as an energetic principle.) The third, again general in character like the first, exhibits the principles which guide a Christian’s conduct.”—Ellicott: “ ἘãêñÜôåéá , ‘temperance,’ is distinguished by Diog. Laert, from óùöñïóýíç as implying a control over the stronger passions, whereas the latter implies a self-restraint in what is less vehement.”—R.]—Against such as these there Is no law.— Ôïéïýôùí is neuter, as in Gal_5:21, and the sense is: Such virtues the law condemns not. This, however, implies of course: Against those that possess such qualities the law is not, and this is the same thought, only more specially conceived, as in Gal_5:14; Gal_5:18. The law requires nothing more of them, and therefore also it can bring no accusations against them. [Or rather, because the law can find nothing to oppose or restrain in such things (which fulfil its ethical purpose), the law has no power over those who bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. Schmoller presses too strongly the implied thought. Beza and others make a meiosis here: these are pleasing to God, but as Meyer remarks: Paul wishes to explain only what he has said in Gal_5:18 of those led by the Spirit. He sets forth the fruit of the Spirit and says: against virtues and states such as these the law is not, and he thus makes clear, how those led by the Spirit by virtue of their moral condition are not subject to the Mosaic law. For whoever is so circumstanced, that a law is not against him, over him it has no power.—R.]
Gal_5:24. And they that are Christ’s.—Another proposition weighty in itself, and especially also in the connection. It joins on well to what precedes, with which it is probably better to connect it, although on the other hand what follows naturally connects itself with this. That is, as Paul went back from the exhortation to the exercise of love towards our neighbor to the exhortation to a walk in the Spirit, as the principle of love, so now he goes back beyond that again, and shows how this walk in the Spirit is itself grounded in fellowship with Christ. As thus, in the first place he spoke of the fruit of the Spirit, and then says: Now it is those that are Christ’s, who have crucified their flesh, etc.; who therefore have crucified the very disposition opposed to the aforesaid fruit of the Spirit, the disposition from which the works of the flesh proceed, so that the opposite disposition, the fruit of the Spirit, can find a place. [Ellicott: “The connection of the whole paragraph appears to be as follows:—‘The Spirit and the flesh are contrary to each other; if the flesh prevail, man is given over to all sin, and excluded from the kingdom of God: if the Spirit be the leading principle, man brings forth good fruits, and is free from the curse of the law. Now the distinguishing feature of the true Christian is the crucifixion of the flesh; consequently, it must be obvious from what has been said, the living in and being led by the Spirit’.”—R.]—Have crucified, ἐóôáýñùóáí .—This is conceived as something accomplished, and is therefore apparently to be referred to an individual act, the act of becoming a Christian through faith and baptism. The meaning, to be sure, is not, that now the flesh, with its affections and lusts, is not any longer present at all with those that have become Christians. But yet at least a walk in the flesh should not any longer exist in the case of Christians; we may declare to these that such a walk is in contradiction to their essential character as Christians, and that a walk in the Spirit may rightly be expected of them; yet this is only possible because we may urge this upon them: You now have crucified the flesh. It is to be noted also, that the language is not: slain, but, crucified. The former could not so well be said, as it is conceived rather as a task of the Christian to be accomplished only by continual effort (Col_3:5). In “crucified,” however, the simple slaying is not the main idea, but the condemning, giving sentence, surrendering to infamous death; and this has necessarily taken place in becoming Christ’s. [Ellicott: “Though this ethical crucifixion is here designated as an act past, it really is and must be a continuing act as well. This however the aorist, with its usual and proper force, leaves unnoticed; it simply specifies, in the form of a general truth, the act as belonging to the past, without affirming or denying any reference to the present. In all such cases the regular reference of the tense to the past may be felt in the kind of summary way in which the action is stated,—the sort of implied dismissal of the subject, and procedure to something fresh.”—R.]— Ἐóôáýñ . naturally alludes to the cross of Christ, and the fellowship with Christ involves a crucifixion of the flesh for the very reason that it is fellowship with Christ’s death on the cross; for through this the fact that men’s óÜñî deserves condemnation and is obnoxious to death, is demonstrated and set forth in a way of irresistible force; for Christ indeed has only suffered what men have deserved on account of their sinful “flesh,” and therefore what this itself has deserved. Whoever therefore appropriates to himself in faith Christ’s death upon the cross, regards the “flesh” in himself no longer; for him in Christ’s death this has been crucified. (Comp. Rom_6:6.) [Meyer: “ ‘Have crucified the flesh,’ expresses: to have divested themselves of all vital fellowship with sin, whose seat the óÜñî is, so that, as Christ was objectively crucified, we, by means of the entrance into the fellowship of this death on the cross, crucify the óÜñî subjectively, moral consciousness of faith, i.e., have made it entirely lifeless and inoperative through faith as the new vital element, to which we have passed over. To Christians considered ideally as here, this ethical slaying of the flesh is something which has taken place, in reality however, it is also something taking place and continuing.”—R.] ÐáèÞìáôá are passions, aroused by the óÜñî in the sensibility; these then show themselves active in definite sinful lusts, ἐðéèõìßáé . In the ðáè . the man is, as is implied in the word passive; but this passivity becomes activity in the ἐðéèõìßáé . [Comp. Col_3:5, and see Trench, Syn. New Testament, 2d series, § xxxvii.—R.]
2. But it is true that the “doing of good works” the making faith active in a walk and mind pleasing to God, does not come to pass, as it were, of itself (as might appear from what precedes), even with the believer (even though, as of course is pre-supposed, his faith is an actual one of inward persuasion, and not merely nominal, is actually equivalent to a ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ åἶíáé , and therefore bears within it the energy perfectly adequate to a moral renewal of the life). Even with the believer the óÜñî has not disappeared. Therefore, although abstractly we must say: the believer cannot dispense himself from a genuine ethical renewal of his life, yet in concreto we are rather to say: He ought not. The “thou oughtest” comes back even to him who stands on the foundation of faith. This appears in the case of the believer, in a twofold manner. In the first place and chiefly on the side of the ðíåὺìá , which he receives in faith; for this works not merely as it were physically, in the form of an energy of nature, converting the will of man into agreement with the mind of God (and the figure of the êáñðüò must be understood cum grano salis: a bare growing up it certainly is not); the result is brought about ethically and not physically; the ðíåῦ&