Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 5:17 - 5:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_5:17. Ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος , τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τ . σάρκος ] The foregoing exhortation, with its promise, is elucidated by the remark that the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to one another in their desires, so that the two cannot together influence the conduct.
As here also τὸ πνεῦμα is not the moral nature of man (see on Gal_5:16), but the Holy Spirit,[238] a comparison has to some extent incorrectly been made with the variance between the νοῦς and the ΣΆΡΞ (Rom_7:18 ff.) in the still unregenerate man, in whom the moral will is subject to the flesh, along with its parallels in Greek and Roman authors (Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 21; Arrian. Epict. ii. 26; Porphyr. de abst. i. 56; Cic. Tusc. ii. 21, et al.), and Rabbins (see Schoettgen, Hor. p. 1178 ff.). Here the subject spoken of is the conflict between the fleshly and the divine principle in the regenerate. The relation is therefore different, although the conflict in itself has some similarity. Bengel in the comparison cautiously adds, “quodammodo.”
ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται ] As to the reading ΓΆΡ , see the critical notes. It introduces a pertinent further illustration of what has just been said. In order to obviate an alleged tautology, Rückert and Schott have placed ταῦτα γ . ἀλλ . ἀντίκ . in a parenthesis (see also Grotius), and taken it in the sense: “for they are in their nature opposed to one another.” A gratuitous insertion; in that case Paul must have written: φύσει γὰρ ταῦτα ἀλλ . ἀντίκ ., for the bare ἈΝΤΊΚΕΙΤΑΙ after what precedes can only be understood as referring to the actually existing conflict.
ἽΝΑ ΜΉ Κ . Τ . Λ .] is not (with Grotius, Semler, Moldenhauer, Rückert, and Schott) to be joined to the first half of the verse,—a connection which is forbidden by the right view of the ΤΑῦΤΑ ΓᾺΡ ἈΛΛ . ἈΝΤΊΚ . as not parenthetical—but to the latter. ἽΝΑ expresses the purpose, and that not the purpose of God in the conflict mentioned—which, when the will is directed towards that which is good, would amount to an ungodly (immoral) purpose—but the purpose of those powers contending with one another in this conflict, in their mutual relation to the moral attitude of man’s will, which even in the regenerate may receive a twofold determination (comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 361 f.). In this conflict both have the purpose that the man should not do that very thing ( ταῦτα with emphasis) which in the respective cases ( ἌΝ ) he would. If he would do what is good, the flesh, striving against the Spirit, is opposed to this; if he would do what is evil, the Spirit, striving against the flesh, is opposed to that. All the one-sided explanations of ἃ ἂν θέλητε , whether the words be referred to the moral will which is hindered by the flesh (Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Morus, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Usteri, Rückert, Schott, de Wette; also Baumgarten-Crusius, Holsten, and others), or to the sensual will, which is hindered by the Spirit (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Beza, Grotius, Neander),[239] are set aside by the fact that ἵνα μή κ . τ . λ . is connected with the preceding ΤΑῦΤΑ ΓᾺΡ ἈΛΛ . ἈΝΤΊΚ ., and this comprehends the mutual conflict of two powers.[240] Winer has what is, on the whole, the correct interpretation: “ τὸ πνεῦμα impedit vos (rather impedire vos cupit), quo minus perficiatis τὰ τῆς σαρκός (ea, quae Ἡ ΣᾺΡΞ perficere cupit), contra Ἡ ΣᾺΡΞ adversatur vobis, ubi ΤᾺ ΤΟῦ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς peragere studetis;” and so in substance Ambrose, Oecumenius, Bengel, Zachariae, Koppe, Matthies, Reithmayr, and others; Wieseler most accurately. This more precise statement of the conflict ( ΤΑῦΤΑ … ΤΑῦΤΑ ΠΟΙῆΤΕ ) might indeed in itself be dispensed with, since it was in substance already contained in the first half of the verse; but it bears the stamp of an emphatic and indeed solemn exposition, that it might be more carefully considered and laid to heart. In Hofmann’s view, ἽΝΑ ΜῊ Κ . Τ . Λ . is intended to express, as the aim of the conflict, that the action of the Christian is not to be self-willed (“springing from himself in virtue of his own self-determination”); and this, because he cannot attain to rest otherwise than by allowing his conduct to be determined by the Spirit. But setting aside the fact that the latter idea is not to be found in the text, the conception of, and emphasis upon, the self-willed, which with the whole stress laid on the being self-determined would form the point of the thought, are arbitrarily introduced, just as if Paul had written: ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἂν αὐτοὶ (or ΑὐΤΟῚ ὙΜΕῖς , Rom_7:25, or ΑὐΘΑΊΡΕΤΟΙ , or ΑὐΤΟΓΝΏΜΟΝΕς , ΑὐΤΌΝΟΜΟΙ , ΑὐΤΌΒΟΥΛΟΙ , or the like).
[238] De Wette wrongly makes the objection, that in the state of the regenerate this relation of conflict does not find a place, seeing that the Spirit has the preponderance (vv. 18, 24). Certainly so, if the regeneration were complete, and not such as it was in the case of the Galatians (Gal_4:19), and if the concupiscentia carnis did not remain at all in the regenerate. That πνεῦμα here denotes the Holy Spirit, is confirmed by ver. 22. The difference of the conflict in the unconverted and in the regenerate consists in this,—that in the case of the former the σάρξ strives with the better moral will ( νοῦς ), and the σάρξ is victorious (Rom_7:7 ff.); but in the case of the regenerate, the σάρξ strives with the Holy Spirit, and man may obey the latter (ver. 18). In the former case, the creaturely power of the σάρξ is in conflict with the likewise creaturely νοῦς , but in the latter with the divine uncreated πνεῦμα . De Wette was erroneously of opinion that here Paul says briefly and indistinctly what in Rom_7:15 ff. he sets forth clearly; the view of Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389, is similar.
[239] Comp. also Ewald, “in order that ye, according to the divine will expressed on the point, may not do that which ye possibly might wish, but that of which ye may know that God desires and approves it.”
[240] Comp. Ernesti Urspr. der Sünde, I. p. 89.