Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 5:26 - 5:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_5:26. Special exhortations now begin, flowing from the general obligation mentioned above (Gal_5:16; Gal_5:25); first negative (Gal_5:26), and then positive (Gal_6:1 ff.). Hence Gal_5:26 ought to begin a new chapter. The address, αδελφοί (Gal_6:1), and the transition to the second person, which Rückert, Schott, Wieseler, make use of to defend the division of the chapters, and the consideration added by de Wette, that the vices mentioned in Gal_5:26 belong to the works of the flesh in Gal_5:20, and to the dissension in Gal_5:15 (this would also admit of application to Gal_6:1 ff.), cannot outweigh the connection which binds the special exhortations together.
κενόδόξοι ] vanam gloriam captantes. Php_2:3; Polyb. xxvii. 6. 12, xxxix. 1. 1. Comp. κενοδοξεῖν , 4Ma_5:9, and κενοδοξία , Lucian. V. H. 4, M. D. 8. See Servius, ad Virg. Aen. xi. 854. In these warnings, Paul refers neither merely to those who had remained faithful to him (Olshausen), nor merely to those of Judaistic sentiments (Theophylact and many others), for these partial references are not grounded on the context; but to the circumstances of the Galatians generally at that time, when boasting and strife (comp. Gal_5:15) were practised on both sides.
Both the γινώμεθα in itself,[246] and the use of the first person, imply a forbearing mildness of expression.
ἀλλήλους προκαλ ., ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες ] contains the modus of the κενοδοξία . challenging one another (to the conflict, in order to triumph over the challenged), envying one another (namely, those superior, with whom they do not venture to stand a contest). On προκαλεῖσθαι , to provoke, see Hom. Il. iii. 432, vii. 50. 218. 285; Od. viii. 142; Polyb. i. 46. 11; Bast. ep. crit. p. 56, and the passages in Wetstein.
φθονεῖν governs only the dative of the person (Kühner, II. p. 247), or the accusative with the infinitive (Hom. Od. i. 346, xviii. 16, xi. 381; Herod. viii. 109), not the mere accusative (not even in Soph. O. R. 310); hence the reading adopted by Lachmann, ἀλλήλους φθον . (following B G*, and several min., Chrysostom, Theodoret, ms., Oecumenius), must be considered as an error of transcription, caused by the mechanical repetition of the foregoing ἀλλήλους .
The fact that ἀλλήλ . in both cases precedes the verb, makes the contrariety to fellowship more apparent, Gal_5:13.
[246] Fiamus. The matter is conceived as already in course of taking place; hence the present, and not the aorist, as is read in G*, min., γενώμεθα . The Vulgate and Erasmus also correctly render it efficiamur. On the other hand, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and most expositors, incorrectly give simus. Against efficiamur Beza brings forward the irrelevant dogmatic objection “atqui natura ipsa tales nos genuit,” which does not hold good, because Christians are regenerate (ver. 24). Hofmann dogmatically affirms that forbearing mildness is out of the question. It is, in fact, implied in the very expression. Comp. Rom_12:16; 2Co_6:14; Eph_5:17. And passages such as Gal_4:12 are in no way opposed to this view, for they are without negation; comp. Eph_5:1, Php_3:17.