Gal_6:10. Concluding exhortation of the section of the epistle which began at Gal_6:6, inferred from the preceding
καιρῷ
γὰρ
ἰδίῳ
θερίσομεν
μὴ
ἐκλ
. (
ἄρα
οὖν
). The specialty of this exhortation lies in
ὡς
καιρὸν
ἔχομεν
, which is therefore emphatically prefixed: as we have a season suitable thereto (for instances of
καιρὸν
ἔχειν
, opportunum tempus habere, see Wetstein). This seasonable time will have elapsed, when the
παρουσία
sets in; we must therefore utilize it as ours by the
ἐργάζεσθαι
τὸ
ἀγαθόν
. The same idea as the
ἐξαγοράζεσθαι
τ
.
καιρόν
in Eph_5:16; Col_4:5. Hofmann introduces the idea, that there will come for the Christians, even before the
παρουσία
, an “hour of temptation,” in which they can only (?) withstand evil, but not bestow good one on another. This idea is in opposition to the context in Gal_6:9, and is nowhere else expressed; and its introduction rests on the incorrect explanation of
ἐργάζ
.
τὸ
ἀγαθόν
as referring to beneficence, and on the wrong idea that the doing good will become impossible.
ὡς
is the usual as, that is, as corresponds with and is suitable to this circumstance, that we
καιρὸν
ἔχομεν
. Comp. Luk_12:58; Joh_12:35; Clement, 2 Corinthians 9 :
ὡς
ἔχομεν
καιρὸν
τοῦ
ἰαθῆναι
,
ἐπιδῶμεν
ἑαυτοὺς
τῷ
θεραπεύοντι
Θεῷ
. Others, likewise retaining the signification “as,” interpret: prout habemus opportunitatem, that is, when and how we have opportunity. Thus Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zachariae, Hilgenfeld. For this, indeed, no conditional
ἄν
would be necessary; but how weak and lax would be the injunction! Besides,
καιρόν
has obtained, by means of Gal_6:9, its quite definite reference. Others take
ὡς
as causal (Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 113; Matthiae, p. 1511). So Koppe, Paulus, Usteri (because we have time and opportunity), de Wette; also Winer, who, however, does not decide between quoniam and prout. But
ὡς
, in the sense of because, is nowhere to be found in Paul’s writings (not even in 2Ti_1:3). Most expositors explain it as so long as (so Flatt, Rückert, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen), which, however, it never means, not even in Luk_12:58.
τὸ
ἀγαθόν
] the morally good, not the useful (Olshausen). Not merely the article, but also the use of the expression by Paul, in definite connection with
ἐργάζεσθαι
, as applying to morality active in works (Rom_2:10; Eph_4:28), ought to have prevented the interpretation of
τὸ
ἀγαθόν
, at variance with the context, as benefits (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and many others, including Schott, de Wette, and Wieseler). Hofmann’s interpretation (“do good towards others”), in more general terms evading the definite idea, amounts to the same thing. The
ἀγαθόν
in this passage is the same as
τὸ
καλόν
in Gal_6:9. That which is good is also that which is morally beautiful. Comp. especially Rom_7:18 f.
πρός
] in relation to, in intercourse with. see Winer, p. 378 f. [E. T. 505]; Sturz, Lex. Xen. III. p. 698; Bernhardy, p. 265.
τοὺς
οἰκείους
τῆς
πίστεως
] the associates in the faith, believers.
οἰκεῖος
, primarily inmate of the house, comes to be used generally in the sense of special appertaining to (comp. LXX. Isa_58:7), without further reference to the idea of a house. So with the genitive of an abstract noun, as
οἰκεῖοι
φιλοσοφίας
(Strabo, I. p. 13 B),
γεωγραφίας
(Strabo, I. p. 25 A.),
ὀλιγαρχίας
(Diod. Sic. xiii. 91), and the like in Wetstein, p. 236; Schweigh. Lex Polyb. p. 401. Comp.
τὰ
τῆς
ἀρετῆς
οἰκεῖα
, 2Ma_15:12;
τὰ
τῆς
φύσεως
οἰκεῖα
, Dem. 1117. 25. The
πίστις
is the Christian faith; those who belong to it are the
πιστεύοντες
. The opposite would be:
τοὺς
ἀλλοτρίους
τῆς
πιστ
. The idea that the church is the
οἶκος
Θεοῦ
(1Ti_3:15; Heb_3:2; Heb_5:6; Heb_10:21; 1Pe_4:17) is improperly introduced here, in order to obtain the sense: “qui per fidem sunt in eadem atque nos familia Domini” (Beza; comp. Estius, Michaelis, and others, also Schott and Olshausen, Wieseler, and Ewald, who limits the idea to the same church). For
τῆς
πίστεως
conveys the complete definition of
τοὺς
οἰκείους
; and the sense mentioned above must have been expressed by some such form as
τοὺς
ἡμῶν
οἰκείους
τῆς
πίστεως
(comp. Php_2:30, et al.; Winer, p. 180, rem. 3 [E. T. 239]). Paul might also simply have written
πρὸς
τοῦς
πιστεύοντας
; but the expression
οἰκείους
τ
.
π
. suggests a stronger motive. Among the
πᾶσι
, in relation to whom we have to put into operation the morally good, those who belong to the faith have the chief claims—because these claims are based on the special sacred duty of fellowship which it involves—in preference to those who are strangers to the faith, although in respect even to the latter that conduct is to be observed which is required in Col_4:5, 1Th_4:12.
Note.
If the reading
ἐργαζόμεθα
(see the critical notes), which is followed by Ewald, were the original one, the indicative would not (with Winer in his Commentary, but not in his Gramm. p. 267 [E. T. 355]) have to be taken as a stronger and more definite expression instead of the hortative subjunctive (do we therefore the good), since this use of the present indicative (Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 559, ad Delect. epigr. p. 228; Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 109; Bernhardy, p. 396) in non-interrogative language (Joh_11:47) is foreign to the N.T., although opportunities for it often presented themselves. The interpretation of the whole sentence as an interrogation has been rightly given up by Lachmann (also at Rom_14:19), because so complete an interruption by a question does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, and the addition
μάλιστα
δέ
πρὸς
τοὺς
οἰκείους
τῆς
πίστεως
indicates that the passage is of the nature of an assertion, and not of a question.
ἐργάζομεθα
τὸ
ἀγαθόν
would rather represent the matter as actually taking place (we do it, we hold it so, it is our maxim), and would thus belong to the ideal delineation of Christian life common with the apostle; which might indeed be highly appropriate in its place at the conclusion of a discourse as a note of triumph, but here, in immediate connection with mere exhortations and injunctions, would be somewhat out of place.