Gálatas 5:13-24

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

Galatians 5:13 to Galatians 6:10

1. More general—reverting to the principle of ethical opposition between Spirit and Flesh, in a discussion, partly didactic

(Galatians 5:13-24)

(Galatians 5:16-24.—Epistle for 14th Sunday after Trinity)

13For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty [ye were called unto liberty, brethren];14 only use not liberty [or your liberty] for an occasion to the flesh, but by [or by means of your] love serve one another. 14For all the [the whole] law is fulfilled15 in one word,16 even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.17 15But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then [Now I say], Walk in [by]18 the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and [for]19 these are contrary [opposed] the one to the other; so that 18ye cannot do the things that ye would [that20 ye may not do what things ye would]. But if ye be led of [by] the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these [of which kind are],21 adultery [omit adultery],22 20fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness [wantonness], idolatry, witchcraft [sorcery], hatred [hatreds], variance [strife],23 emulations [jealousy], wrath, strife, seditions, 21heresies [caballings, dissensions, factions], envyings, murders,24 drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past [I forewarn you as I did forewarn you], that they which do such things [as these]25 shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 23longsuffering, gentleness [benignity], goodness, faith [or trustfulness], Meekness, 24temperance: against such [as these] there is no law. And [Now]26 they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the [its] affections and lusts.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Galatians 5:13. For ye were called unto liberty, brethren.—“For”: Paul justifies the strong expression, he has used in Galatians 5:12, against the false teachers. They deserved this rebuke, for—they seek to deprive you of your freedom, and yet—ye are called to that (by God through your conversion to Christ); therefore they strive against the counsel and will of God Himself.—To this thought: “ye were called unto liberty,” Paul however now adds a restriction, a warning against misunderstanding and misuse of this liberty (which in all that precedes he had vindicated with such decision for Christians, and which he had made it their duty not to surrender): only use not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, μόνον μὴ κ. τ. λ. We must supply, say τρέπετε=Turn not, use not liberty as a pretext for the flesh=let not the flesh (your sinful human nature) obtain in this freedom (from the law) an occasion to pretend that it is therefore now allowed to man to do what he will, and therefore it also may claim indulgence with its sinful lusts. This of course would be an entire perversion of Christian freedom, were the flesh thus allowed to take advantage of it. The antithesis shows distinctly, what Paul regards as the essence of the sarcical state; not by any means the corporeal nature, properly so called, but the selfish Egoism. For he exhorts: but by your love serve one another; love being conceived as the means of serving.—Δουλεύειν in happy antithesis to the ἐλευθερία of Christians. Christians are not to be servants to the law; in this sense they are free; but on the other hand this freedom does not exclude but includes δουλεύειν in the sense of “serving one another. [Lightfoot: “Both ἀλάπης and δουλεύετε are emphatic. St. Paul’s meaning may be expressed by a paraphrase thus; ‘you desire to be in bondage: I too recommend to you a bondage, the subservience of mutual love. Temper your liberty with this bondage, and it will not degenerate into license’.”—R.]

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 μόνον μή: 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. Galatians 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 (Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 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 Galatians 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. Galatians 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.27

Galatians 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 ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ, taken πληροῦται as= ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, comprehenditur, as Romans 8:9. [So Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, et al.—R.] But this must be rejected as lexically untenable. Besides with the reading [now generally adopted], πεπλήρωται it becomes at once incorrect.—As little does νόμον πληρ. have here the same sense as in Matthew 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 πληροῦν in the doctrine that is here in question, and in reality, if πληρ. 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 πᾶς νόμος, since that which is substance, in another aspect, is also foundation. Πληροῦν is to be understood of fulfilment by deed, conformity, satisfacere legi. [Ellicott: “The perfect πεπλήρωται suitably points to the completed and permanent act.”—R.] It is peculiar then, no doubt, that this is said to be in one word, ἐν ἑνὶ λόλῳ, and this to be regarded as an abbreviated expression for; By conformity to the one word, precept (from Leviticus 19:18), immediately follows: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.—[Meyer: “Neighbor is for the Christian, who rightly (Matthew 5:17) applies this Mosaic command to himself, his fellow-Christian (comp. Galatians 5:13, ἀλλήλοις), 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 10:0); 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 πλήρωμα νόμου (Romans 13:8-10). Nearly related as the two passages appear to be, they must by no means be confounded. For in Romans 13:0 it is expressly stated what is to be understood by νόμος, namely, the individual commandments of the Decalogue which respect conduct towards our neighbor, and love is called the πλήρωμα 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 πεπλήρωται 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.28 (Where the former is in question, Jesus in Matthew 21:34 sq. places the two commandments together; and where the latter, Paul, Romans 13:0., 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 (γάρ), this is not in the sense that he means thereby to represent the “serving by love” (Galatians 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 πᾶς and πεπλήρ., 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): ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλ. κ. τ. λ, 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 (Galatians 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 Galatians 5:18. The Doctrinal Notes show his meaning more clearly.—R.]

Galatians 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 Galatians 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 δάκνειν καὶ κατεσθίειν so definitely to that, as is commonly done. For this is at least intimated nowhere else in the Epistle.

Galatians 5:16. Now I say, walk by the Spirit.—With λέγω δέ Paul conducts his exhortation to serve one another by love (agreeably to the warning already given in the first half of Galatians 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.—Πνεύματιπεριπ. 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=πνεύματι , Galatians 5:18. [The dative may be instrumental, as in Galatians 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 =κατὰ πνεῦμα), 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.] Πνεῦμα is here also doubtless =The Holy Ghost; it is this, that overcomes the σάρξ. 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 πνεῦμα 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 τὸ πνεῦμα means the objective Holy Ghost, πνεῦμα without the article the subjective, cannot be justified, since πνεῦμα has the nature of a proper name, and always, even when it dwells and reigns in the human spirit, remains objective, as the Divine πνεῦμα specifically distinct from the human (Romans 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 (καί with οὐ μή 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 οὐ μή is strong: “shall in no wise” (Lightfoot).—On the word “flesh,” see Doctrinal Note 4.—R.]

Galatians 5:17. For.—This introduces, in the first place, simply the proof of a “lust of the flesh” (Galatians 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 ἐπιθυμεῖν Πνεῦμα.—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 ἐπιθυμεῖν with Πνεῦμα, 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 ἴνα=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. Ἃἂνθέλητε 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. Ἵνα is therefore not at all to be understood in an ecbatic sense. [Alford: “The necessity of supposing an ecbatic meaning for ἵνα 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 Romans 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.]

Galatians 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 ἐπιθ. of the πν. becomes an ἄγειν. [Bengel: ubi vero spiritus vincit, acie res decernitur. The dative here is instrumental.—R.]—Ye are not under the law.—This is according to Galatians 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 Galatians 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,’ Romans 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 Galatians 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” (Galatians 5:23).—R.]

Galatians 5:19-21. Now the works of the flesh are manifest.—Φανερά, evident=plainly conspicuous and therefore of course undeniable. This φανερά 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 Galatians 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 (πορν.—ἀσελγ.) 2. Idolatry (εἰδωλολ., φαρμ.), 3. Contentiousness (ἔχθραι—φόνοι). 4. Intemperance (μέθαι—κῶμοι). 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, ἀκαθ., lustful impurity in general after the special fornication, πορνεία; wantonness, ἀσελγ., lustful wantonness. [Lightfoot: “The same three words occur together in a different order, 2 Corinthians 12:21. The order here is perhaps the more natural: πορνεία a special form of impurity;29 ἀκαθαρσία uncleanness in whatever guise, ἀσέλγεια an open reckless contempt of propriety. A man may be ἀκάθαρτος and hide his sin; he does not become ἀσελγής 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” ἀσέλγεια. 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.]—Φαρμακεία, 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 φαρμακεῖαι 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 αἱρέσεις have reference to dissension, the first four as shown in individual conduct, among which however, jealousy, ζῆλος and wrath, θυμοί, 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 φθόνος would otherwise belong with ζῆλος; “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. 1 John 3:12. [Lightfoot: “A principle of order may be observed in the enumeration: 1. ἔχθραι, a general expression opposed to άγἀπη, breaches of charity in feeling or in act; from this point onward the terms are in an ascending scale: 2. ἔρις ‘strife,’ not necessarily implying self-interest; 3. ζῆλος ‘rivalry’ in which the idea of self-assertion is prominent: 4. θυμοὶ ‘wraths,’ a more passionate form of ἔρις; 5. ἐριθεῖαι30 ‘factious cabals,’ a stronger development of ζῆλος: 6, 7. hostility has reached the point where the contending parties separate; such separation is either temporary (διχοστασίαι ‘divisions’), or permanent (αἱρέσεις ‘sects, heresies’): 8. φθόνοι, a grosser breach of charity than any hitherto mentioned, the wish to deprive another of what he has; 9. φόνοι, 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.—Προ in προλέγω and προεῖπον=before it comes; the preterite in προεῖπον=during my presence among you.—Shall not inherit the kingdom of God.—Just as in 1 Corinthians 6:9 sq.; Ephesians 5:5, of course with the pre-supposition: If no conversion intervenes.

Galatians 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.—Καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, essentially the same as ἔργα, “works,” Galatians 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 ἔργα 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 καρπός 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. Galatians 5:13-14). Gal 10: Χαρά, one is inclined to take as Joy with the brethren, opposed to ζῆλοι, φθόυοι. It is no objection that this incidental idea is not contained in the word itself; the connection might easily indicate in what particular sense χαρά 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 εἰρήνη to πραΰτης belong together, as designating the fruits of “love,” unselfish love; εἰρήνη therefore denotes peace with others, μακροθυμία patience under injuries, χρηστ. gracious, friendly character, ἀγαθ. is nearly related to this: Benevolence (Luther); not so generally as, good dispositions (the special meaning is quite frequent in the Septuagint): πίστις here of course not=justifying faith, but either trustfulness, as opposed to mistrust, or faithfulness.—Finally, temperance, ἐγκράτεια, is added in antithesis particularly to the sins of lust and intemperance (Galatians 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; μακροθυμία is passive, ‘patient endurance under injuries inflicted by others;’ Χρηστότης, neutral, ‘a kindly disposition towards one’s neighbors’ not necessarily taking a practical form;31 ἀγαθωσύνη, 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: “Ἐγκράτεια, ‘temperance,’ is distinguished by Diog. Laert, from σωφροσύνη 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.—Τοιούτων is neuter, as in Galatians 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 Galatians 5:14; Galatians 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 Galatians 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.]

Galatians 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, ἐσταύρωσαν.—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 (Colossians 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.]—Ἐσταύρ. 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 σάρξ 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. Romans 6:6.) [Meyer: “ ‘Have crucified the flesh,’ expresses: to have divested themselves of all vital fellowship with sin, whose seat the σάρξ 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 σάρξ 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.] Παθήματα are passions, aroused by the σάρξ in the sensibility; these then show themselves active in definite sinful lusts, ἐπιθυμίαι. In the παθ. the man is, as is implied in the word passive; but this passivity becomes activity in the ἐπιθυμίαι. [Comp. Colossians 3:5, and see Trench, Syn. New Testament, 2d series, § xxxvii.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Men are pointed away from the law and to faith, first and above all, because only faith in Christ and not the keeping of the precepts of the law, or the doing of works of the law, is the way to the attaining of justification and of the divine inheritance (subjectively: to the attaining of the comfort of the forgiveness of sins, of the adoption of children and the hope of the eternal inheritance). For him who has this faith, the law loses its importance, for the reason that a usus justificatorius it has not, while it has already fulfilled its usus pædagogicus, of impelling to faith, in the case of such a one.—But nevertheless the Apostle is the farthest possible from meaning that the believer on Christ is dispensed from giving a truly moral (ethico-religious) character to his inward disposition and his life (from the doing of “good works”), and is entitled to persevere in sin, that is, to indulge the “flesh.” So far is this from being true that this, despite his faith and despite the fact that faith is the condition of salvation, nevertheless excludes him from the kingdom of God and from eternal life (Galatians 5:21; Galatians 6:8). And, indeed, this cannot be the opinion of the Christian, for this his faith in Christ involves not merely an impulse and power to the avoidance of sin, to the willing and doing of good, but because it is a coming into fellowship with Christ’s death, it immediately involves also the arising of a hatred against sin, a condemning of the flesh (Galatians 5:21), and because it is a receiving of Christ, it involves also the beginning of a life for God (comp. Galatians 2:19 sq. and the Doctrinal Notes on that section). The latter fact, the new life, which arises or is given with faith on Christ, receives in this section its exact expression; there begins in man a working of the Spirit (πνεῦμα), who, overcoming the flesh (Galatians 5:16), brings forth fruit in an ethically good, God-pleasing disposition of heart and life (Galatians 5:22 sq.). Nay, it is only this faith in Christ which leads to this goal, as it is only this which leads to the other goal of justification. The law cannot effect this second, and quite as little can it effect the first. On the contrary, it arouses the σάρξ (and the ἁμαρτία dwelling therein), but does not assist to the receiving of the Spirit (comp. Galatians 2:2, and Romans 7:8). So little therefore does faith in Christ dispense from a disposition and course of action pleasing to God, that it is just this, nay more, only this which leads thereto. If any one is disposed to call this disposition and activity to the Christian, thus conformed to God’s will, a “fulfilling of the law,” he does not name it wrongly; only in doing it he is to keep in mind (1) that it is not to be understood in a formal, but only in a material relation: a doing of that which the law commands, yet not because the law commands it, but in the strength and on the impulse of faith, or more properly, of the Spirit, something therefore entirely different from what Paul calls “works of the law;” it is that which he so often names ἔργα , works of the Spirit, rather than of the law; (2) that in this appellation law is taken in a quite restricted sense, of the properly ethical commandments (see Romans 13:8 sq., where it plainly appears what Paul means by the νόμος; when he speaks generally, he uses the expression ἐντολαὶ θεοῦ, 1 Corinthians 7:19). “Fulfilling of the law” will therefore always be an only partially adequate expression for a Christian life, a conformity of the life to God’s will. Entirely abandoning the Old Testament point of view therefore, Paul speaks directly of an ἀναπληροῦν τὸν νόμον Χριστοῦ (Galatians 6:2).32

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 τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἶναι, and therefore bears within it the energy perfectly adequate to a moral renewal of the life). Even with the believer the σάρξ 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 πνεὺμα, 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 καρπός must be understood cum grano salis: a bare growing up it certainly is not); the result is brought about ethically and not physically; the πνεῦμα also approaches the will with requirements, which it is true are far more intensive, which have as it were a quite different power of bending the will from the requirements of the law or of the conscience (the law of the letter or of the conscience); for they are strengthened by the persuasion which is received along with faith into the heart, of the condemnation of sin as well as the forgiveness of it, of the holiness as well as the compassion inhering in the grace of God in Christ. But it is with an “ought,” however intensive, that the πνεῦμα in the believer approaches the will of man, and seeks to determine it to let itself be guided by him, to determine it to the ἄγεσθαι and then also to the πνεύματι περιπατεῖν: and in doing this he meets with many hindrances on the side of the σάρξ (Galatians 5:17).—This is the immediate, inward “ought” that has place and is needful even with the believer. But to this inward monition and impulse of the Spirit, there must be added, in order to keep it ever alive and guard it against all impure admixture, one coming from without. Of this we have in this very section the speaking proof. The Apostle sees occasion given him to admonish the Galatian Christians with earnest words to a disposition and course of life answerable to their faith; he approaches them with an “Ought:” “So ought it to be with Christians = because you believe in Christ!” And his admonition here and elsewhere holds good also for us; it is the testimony of the Spirit conveyed through the word—testimonium externum (in distinction from internum)—the comprehensive exposition of which is the function of New Testament ethics.

3. That even the believer is not and cannot be spared the earnestly admonishing and impelling “ought” because even with him there is not found a steady will (on account of the old Adam), is the meaning of the church doctrine of the tertius legis usus, the usus legis with the renatus (the us. didact. or normal.), and understood in this sense it is correct. But as it is expressed it is distorted and incorrect, and is in conflict with the indisputable Pauline doctrine, that the believer is not ὑπὸ νόμον, that he may not be placed nor place himself under it. He is indeed under a law of the Spirit, so far as the Spirit admonishes, requires, rebukes, yet the Spirit does by no means merely this, but far more; this is the very least that he does. But especially is the believer in no sense whatever under the law of the letter, the Old Testament law, the proper lex, and with all its generalizing of the conception of lex, the Formula Concordiæ, nevertheless, in the section touching this matter does not really go beyond the Mosaic law. It does not arrive at the conception of the law of the Spirit (the law of faith), whether this is entirely inward, or expressed also in the word of Scripture (in the New Testament word of Scripture, which for the fulfilment of the ethical requirement presupposes the faith in Christ with what it has and gives). The law of the letter (the proper lex), has, it is true, its great significance for the believer but it has its place not, so to speak, after Faith, but only before the same, as pædagogus (see above on Galatians 3:19 sq.); and in this sense it permanently retains its importance, and is indispensable for faith. That is, the sinfulness and imperfection of the new life even in the believer, make it needful that the law should not once only, but ever afresh, awaken in him the knowledge of sin and the impossibility of himself attaining salvation and eternal life, and by that very means drive him to assure himself of it in. faith in Christ; and so ever impel him anew to faith. So far, therefore, as a usus of the lex, strictly so called, can be predicated even as to the renatus, it falls under the usus pædagogicus, as usus secundus. But in this pedagogy its function is continually exhausting itself again; this function only does Paul ascribe to it, and another, the function docere, ut in vera pietate vivemus et ambu-lemus, we have no right to attribute to it, especially as we thereby come into conflict with the definite assurance that the law only stirs up sin and the σάρξ, and of itself continually hinders anew the Spirit’s gaining dominion and therewith the attainment of the vera pietas. The law contributes directly neither to justification nor to the new life, and cannot therefore be directly the means of maintaining the latter. What it can and should do, was and is, to open the way for that which does lead to justification and to the new life, namely, Faith. As this is its work at first, so is it ever after. The accomplishment of these two things it must then leave to faith, first as that which lays hold of God’s grace—for justification, then as that which has laid hold of it and therewith receives the Spirit. This Holy Ghost now, and not the νόμος, is alone in condition as the spirit of faith to assist to ever renewed victory over the σάρξ, partly through His teaching, partly through His monition, partly through His persuasion and drawing. For if the believer did right because admonished by the law, he would only attain again to ἔργα νόμου, but not to veritable ἔργα .—Only so much is true, that in concreto very many a Christian, because faith has been with him from the beginning or has become only a name, allows himself to be guided merely by the law of the letter, at least if he has moral earnestness of temper, and thereby accomplishes nothing more than ἔργα νόμου, as to which he simply deceives himself, in accounting them perhaps for ἔργα τοῦ πνεύματος. More or less, moreover, does he seek in these ἔργα νόμου his justification also, and his hope; half-way at least, reckoning as the other half the merit of Christ, yet more in name than in reality. [It is only necessary to remark here, that Paul uses the word νόμος as covering the whole Mosaic law. That this whole Mosaic law has not the third use, of “teaching us how we may live and walk in true piety,” is very evident. So also, that the new life of the believer is only a new life, in so far as it is through the teaching, monition, persuasion and drawing of the Spirit, must be believed and felt by the Christian. Still what does that Spirit teach and admonish us to do? To “walk even as he walked,” all will agree. And how did He walk, that Master whom we follow?—He fulfilled all righteousness, He obeyed the law for us. Clearly then the Spirit, which receives of the things of Christ and shows them unto us, will show us as our duty, what Christ did, the complete obedience to God’s requirements, and this will include all of permanent ethical value in the Mosaic law.—That may be but a part, yet it is a part, for what was in itself right at Sinai’s foot is right at the foot of the cross. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Holiness is opposed to sin, Sin is opposition to God, it expresses itself in disobedience to His moral law,—the Holy Spirit must teach, admonish, persuade and draw us to the observance of whatever has been at any time an expression of God’s moral law. The law cannot have a usus pædagogicus still, did it not convict us of sin; it cannot convict us of sin, unless its requirements are holy, and just and good; and as such the Spirit of Holiness must teach us the moral law still.—The controversy about the third use of the law, between the Lutherans and Reformed, seems to be one of terms. The only practical question that can arise out of it, is one respecting the obligation to observe the Fourth Commandment.—R.]

4. Spirit and Flesh. Πνεῦμα and σάρξ are the two polar antithesis, as the Apostle most vividly shows in this section, Galatians 5:17. Πνεῦμα is the Holy Ghost, the Divine principle, that enters along with faith in Christ into the man, generating in him a divine temper and divine life, and that in conflict with the σάρξ and its παθήματα and ἐπιθυμίαι. Σάρξ is in itself simply (in antithesis to the Divine principle), human nature, of course the whole because the living nature, and embraces therefore body and soul. But it is not human nature on the side of its relation to God, but on the side of its alienation from God, on which side man with relation to God draws himself back upon himself, seeks himself and takes honor to himself, withdrawing it from God; in short human nature as sinful.—The use of “flesh” to denote human nature in general, is grounded in the Hebrew idiom, according to which בָשָׂר is used by synecdoche for the whole man, and this idiom itself is in its turn, without doubt, grounded in the experience and Scriptural doctrine of the frailty of man, which induced the sacred writers to derive the designation for man generally’, from that part of man in which his frailty is most conspicuous. As this frailty again has its ground, according to Biblical teaching, in man’s alienation from God, there became connected with σάρξ, the established designation of human nature, the accessory idea of alienation from God=sinfulness. This took place in the proportion in which this view into man’s alienation from God even from birth, as the deepest ground of his frailty, became clear, and in the New Testament, therefore, more than in the Old.—The expression σάρξ, therefore gives us no right whatever, to think of the bodily organism more than of the soul, and (with reference to the accessory notion of sinfulness,) to find intimated in the expression either the view of the derivation of sin from the body, or an especial reference to so-called fleshly sins more than others. (Comp. Wieseler’s thorough exposition of this conception.)—The essential element in the idea of the σάρξ is the turning away from God and referring ourselves to ourselves, the self-seeking, egoistic element. This is primarily in respect to God, but immediately connected with it is the fact that a man in reference to other men also seeks himself, his enjoyment or his gain. It is easily explicable therefore why love appears as the first effect of the πνεῦμα, being the temper and act opposed to selfishness. In this section the Apostle has, it is true, special occasion to exhort to the love of our neighbor, but his speaking of love is not on this account merely casual. [Comp. on σάρξ, J. Müller, Christian doctrine of sin.—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Galatians 5:13. Luther:—The natural man understands nothing of the doctrine of grace; therefore comes it, when he hears this doctrine, that he straightway draws it down to his own lust and lewdness, and concludes on this wise; If the law concerns us not and has no right to us, then will we live as we list.—How we at this time have seen in all ranks that all will fain be evangelical and enjoy the Christian liberty, and yet nevertheless the great crowd goes its own way; this one follows his avarice, the other his lewdness, the third his pride and haughtiness, etc.—Rieger:—The liberty to which we are called by the gospel, is not so intended that we may tear ourselves loose from the law at our own will and please the flesh.—Into such a freedom the law can with honor dismiss man; for through Christ and the curse borne on the cross the law has its highest honor, and sin or the flesh wins thereby no advantage. For precisely that which was impossible to the law, namely, to bring to pass an inward enduring hatred against evil and an inward cleaving to good, from a willing heart, is accomplished by faith in Christ, and therefore the liberty of faith is not against the law.—Heubner:—By the side of the highest good stands the highest evil, by the side of freedom, lawlessness. No word has been so abused and desecrated, as Freedom.

Luther:—“By love serve one another.” We must diligently teach in religion both sorts of doctrine, of Faith and Works; yet so that we carry neither too far. Else, where one teaches Works alone, he loses Faith, but if one teaches concerning Faith alone, forthwith gross, carnal men begin to dream that works are not necessary. Yet must the doctrine of Faith be planted first, or it cannot be understood what good works really are.—Although we have been justified, yet have we still sin in us, which rhymes as ill with good works as with faith, but draws us away from both. Besides flesh and reason is so disposed that it has by nature all its delight and pleasure in Pharisaic and superstitious works, and does those works with far greater earnestness which itself has chosen, than those which God has commanded. Therefore have rightminded preachers as much to do, in admonishing the people to genuine love and really good works, as in teaching genuine faith.—Christians must consider thus, that in their conscience they are indeed free from the curse of the law, sin and death, but as to the body they are servants, for therein should one serve another by love.

Galatians 5:14. It is needless for any one to trouble you with circumcision and Moses’ ceremonies; see to this before all things, that you remain steadfast in the doctrine of faith. Will you after that do good works, as indeed you should, I will with a single word point out to you the noblest and greatest of all works, which ye should do, that ye may fulfil all laws: Love one another! Therefore the true, perfect doctrine and Christian theology of Faith and Love is in long and in short this: Believe on Christ, love thy neighbor as thyself! It is most short, to look upon the words, but if it is to be practical, it is broader, higher and deeper than heaven and earth.—The reason imagines it a very low thing, to say nothing of its being an act of God’s service, for one to help the other by love, i. e., for one to instruct and set aright a wanderer, comfort a mourner and afflicted, support the weak, for every one to help his neighbor, as he can, and make up for that which he lacks; item, for one to be obedient to government, hold his parents in honor, to have patience at home and bear with a whimsical, strange-tempered yoke-fellow, with ill-mannered servants, etc.; all which amounts to this: By love serve one another. But believe me, they are not contemptible and mean, but excellent and precious works, because God has commanded them and they please Him. It is of no concern therefore, whether the world looks upon them as mean and contemptible or not.—It is a short word, but excellently and powerfully spoken: Love thy neighbor as thyself! We cannot give any one a better, more certain and more exact example, how he should love his neighbor, than if we say to him that he should love him so as he loves himself. Nor can one have a better, nor nobler virtue than Love, and this high virtue can be directed towards nothing better than towards our neighbor.—If thou wouldst know how thou shouldst love thy neighbor, consider diligently how dear thou art to thyself, that thou wouldst gladly have help and counsel given thee, if thou wert in distress and necessity, as much as all creatures could. Therefore needest thou no book, out of which to learn how thou shouldst love thy neighbor.—Rieger:—The call of the gospel to Christ and the grace which has come by Him, the sense of being one Spirit with Christ, brings us under the law of Christ, where in love we have all at once, and assumes also the willingness to serve one another through love. The warding off the claims of faith in the gospel with the pretext of love to man, is a critical sign of our times.

Galatians 5:15. Starke:—Hatred, envy and reviling are as the teeth of snakes and lions. What shame, that among Christians there is such an evil kind of people!—What mean these wearisome, and mischievous lawsuits?—Lange:—Each vice brings in time some punishment with it, as every virtue has in advance some recompense. For even as love does him good that cherishes it, so does hatred and contention bring nothing but disquiet and ill-content, and indeed injures the body also in health.—Rieger:—The biting begins on good pretexts; but men easily go further, to do mischief to the property, to disparage the merits, etc.—Roos:—To bite and devour one another, is not only the wont of the populace, but also the way of many learned men, whereof their learned journals, reviews, etc., bear witness. And so do they devour one another mutually, i. e., they destroy altogether one another’s credit and the usefulness which each yet had, perhaps also a part of their life. Their esprit is flesh, what may then the rest be?

Galatians 5:16-17. Luther:—Paul means by lust of the flesh not alone unchastity, but also all other sinful cravings, whereby the saints are tempted.—It is impossible that you can follow the Spirit in all things whatever and not also feel the flesh, and that you should remain unhindered by it; yea, it will hinder you and so hinder you that you will not be able to do what you gladly would do. In this all that you can do is to withstand the flesh, which quickly becomes inflamed with anger, impatience, etc.; murmurs, hates, bites, becomes angry against God, falls into doubting; and to follow the Spirit, which admonishes you to peace, patience, hope, faith. To know this is for believers most profitable and comforting. When I was yet a monk, I often thought that I must be lost, when I felt an evil temptation. Then undertook I many kinds of discipline, confessed every day, and yet it all helped me nothing. For the same temptations evermore recurred; therefore tormented I myself perpetually with such thoughts: See, there you have committed such and such a sin, etc., therefore there is no help for you, all your good works are come to nothing. Had I then rightly understood St. Paul’s words, I would not have tormented myself so severely, but would have considered with myself, as I am now wont to do: Dear Martin, it amounts to nothing, your leading an angelical life here on earth; so long as you live in the flesh, it will not give over its way. Yet do not therefore despond, but withstand it through the Spirit, that thou mayest not fulfil its lust, and it cannot hurt thee, because thou art in Jesus Christ.—Whoever thinks that a Christian must have no fault at all in him, and yet feels that in himself there are many and manifold shortcomings, such a one must at the last be consumed of melancholy. But whoever understands it, him must such temptation of the flesh, i. e., evil, serve for his best good. For when the flesh will tempt to sin, he is led with earnestness to pray, to seek forgiveness of sins through Christ, to lay hold of the righteousness of the law, after which perhaps he would never have so greatly longed.—It is to Christians profitable and good that they feel such troublesomeness of the flesh, that they may not become proud over the supposed righteousness of their works, as if they were in favor with God on account of the same.

Starke:—The contest of the flesh and the Spirit exists alone in the regenerate. The conflict which exists in an unregenerate man, so that he does not fulfil all evil lusts that stir in him, is only a conflict of the reason with its natural impulses and gross sensual desires. This is to be carefully distinguished from the former, that one may not, because he feels within himself a struggle against sin, immediately reckon himself regenerate.—The strife of the Spirit against the flesh is an infallible token of regeneration and a state of grace, and is distinguished from the strife which is waged by the mere powers of reason in this, that the former always wins the victory.—These words are misused by the children of the world to this effect, that it is vain to strive after a holy character, because we cannot, after all, do what we would. But mark, what the regenerate, who are spoken of here, will according to the Spirit, and what according to the flesh. They are not aiming first to obtain the dominion over sin, for this they have already, but they would fain quench and be rid of everything sinful; but this, on account of the flesh cleaving to them, they cannot do. According to the flesh they would fain let sin come to dominion again, but that they do not, because the Spirit strives against it and overcomes the flesh. Therefore it follows from this, that a believer can by all means live holy, but here can arrive at no perfection.

Rieger:—The flesh and the sin which cleaves to the same, lust and its allurements and enticements we indeed experience, nay more, there may also occur cases where it is not as plain as we could wish that the lust hats not been admitted and treacherously taken the will with it. But by renewal in the spirit of tile mind one may always count himself to be no debtor to the flesh, to fulfil its lusts, but may take the curse from Christ’s cross and hang it upon the flesh, and from Christ’s Spirit may gain the willingness to separate therefrom. Between the strivings of the Spirit and of the flesh against each other it must become evident, which way the man, after receiving sufficient strength, is bending his will, and on which side he takes his stand. If the Spirit’s impulses and leadings continue with a man and if he is honestly minded to obey the Spirit and its holy opposition to the flesh, he does not indeed deny the law the right to show him his imperfections, but he is not under it, and is not at the last judged by it. Christ has taken the believer under His atoning shield against the curse of the law, and has moreover bestowed on him His spirit, which impels him as to all other good, so also to combat for this faith, although there is many a conflict and many a doubt before he can without ceasing so believe and act.

Galatians 5:19. Luther:—It is a very different thing to be tempted by the flesh, and yet not to follow its lusts, but to Walk in the Spirit and strive against them, from what it is to consent to the lust of the flesh and abide therein and nevertheless to make great boast of the Spirit, and to make as though one lived Christianly. The former St. Paul comforts, in that he says: Because they are ruled by the Spirit they are not under the law; but the others he threatens with everlasting damnation, in that he declares: They that do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.—Spener:—By works of the flesh, Paul, it is true, understands principally actual outward, out-breaking deeds, but he does not thereby exclude inward vices, which are also rightly called works of the flesh. Nay, as respects the outward sins themselves, their sinfulness consists not merely in the outward deed itself, but in the evil and prevailing inclination thereto. Therefore is one guilty of adultery, fornication, gluttony, drunkenness, quarrelsomeness, etc., who allows such vices to gain the upper hand in his soul, even though from want of opportunity, or fear of infamy or trouble he restrains himself from the outward act; for God looks on the heart and its longings.

“Drunkenness, revellings.” In Starke:—The Apostle is not speaking merely of the habit and custom of drinking; therefore it is a false excuse if any one thinks that a debauch is no sin if only one does not make a business of it. The devil invented this excuse. When any one so overfills himself that he is unfit for prayer and the business of his calling, that is drunkenness; what then are we to think of the respectable world with its sinful and damnable Christian drinking bouts? and what too of this continual drinking of healths, than as of a temptation to swill down liquor?—“They which do such things.” It is not said: They that do such things daily; for even though one does any such thing only now and then, on certain occasions, yea even only once, but voluntarily, he forfeits the kingdom of God, so long as he remains under the dominion of this work of the flesh. Nor is it said: They that do all this. It is not needful for a man to do all these sins or many such, to fall under the penalty, but it is enough, if a man lets one single sin rule over him, let it be what it will. Now it rules over him, not only while he is committing it, but so long as the purpose never to commit it again, is not yet fully fixed.—They shall not only not procure eternal life by their works of the flesh (as may well be supposed), but, if they set their hopes, not upon earning eternal life by their works, but receiving it as a gift to be received by faith, they will not, leading a dissolute life, inherit it any more than earn it.—He inherits not the kingdom of grace, still less the kingdom of glory, even though his funeral sermon extols him as blessed, surely, very, or even most blessed.

Galatians 5:22. It is not enough to flee the manifest works of the flesh, but we must bring true virtues to take their place. The Spirit of Christ must water and warm the hearts of men with His heavenly consolation, if they are to be fruitful to good works.—“Works of the flesh,” said Paul, as being what comes into view and can be apprehended by reason alone, as to what they are, and that they are evil; but he does not use this term of the fruits of the Spirit as being for the most part internal, and although they express themselves in outward works, yet they cannot be comprehended and judged by the mere reason; nay, reason, should she pronounce a judgment, would be more apt to pronounce a judgment against them. Indeed, the fruits of the Spirit often exist in good measure in those, who yet in true poverty of Spirit complain of the lack of them.—Roos:—All these fruits are found in every spiritual man, although in one this, in another that fruit is more richly possessed.

Luther:—Joy. This means the loving discourse of the bridegroom and his bride, i. e., the joyful, loving thoughts, which a believing heart has concerning Christ, the wholesome admonitions, the joyful hymns, thanksgiving psalms and songs of praise, with which Christians admonish and cheer one another. The Scripture testifieth once and again, that God had no pleasure in the sadness of the spirit, but wills, that we be joyful in Him. Therefore also He sent His Son, not to make us perturbed and mournful, but joyful. Therefore do the Prophets, Apostles and Christ Himself admonish, yea, command us, that we be glad and joyful. Where this spiritual joy is, there does the heart inwardly rejoice through faith in Christ, and moreover shows forth such joy outwardly with words and gestures; yea, it can be joyful even in the midst of affliction and death. Such joy is to the world unknown.—Patience. This is a virtue of such sort, that one does not alone endure and suffer waywardness, ill-luck, wrong, etc., but also bears long with those that do him such evil, and waits if perchance they may at some time amend themselves. The devil has this way, that when he cannot in tempting us overcome by main force and might, he watches nevertheless with wearisome continuance, and worries us out if he can, for he knows well what weak, earthen vessels we are, that cannot at the last endure violence and repeated hard strokes; therefore he oft gains great advantage, in that he perseveres so long and diligently.—Gentleness.—This is: that one is so disposed, that every one gets on well with him and loves to deal with him. For Christians should not be unfriendly and cross-tempered people, but mild, courteous, friendly, such as every one loves to consort with, who bear with others’ faults, are easy to give way to others, and can put up with the whim of others. Such a courteous friendly man was our Lord Jesus Christ, as we see in the Gospel from beginning to end.

In Starke:—Goodness—All nature is to us a mirror of kindness. For where is there a creature that does not serve and do good to man? For us the sun shines, for us the earth bears fruit, us does the heaven cover, to us does the air minister breath, everything stands at our command; should we then be the only ones not to practice kindness?—Luther:—Faith.—He that has this faith, such an one suspects no evil of other people, but has a loving, simple heart towards every man; and although he be deceived, he yet remains long-suffering and kind, and forbears with him that hath deceived him. In summa, he believes every man and yet puts his confidence in no man but alone in God.—Roos:—Against spiritual men the law is not, for although they are not without fault yet they are wholly under grace (Romans 6:14), and are partakers of the blessing in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:13-14). There are people, who imagine themselves to have preached the gospel, when they encourage others, by a human persuasion, to let go the Jewish way of thinking, not anxiously to count this or that for a sin, and to entertain no scruple about permitted things. But although such persuasions, addressed to a natural man, may bring about a show of freedom, and such a man may then imagine that he is no longer under the law, though he really is, yet the great question remains, whether the law is not against him. The right of the law to curse him, is not an usurpation, but a well-founded, sacred right, to which there is nothing to oppose but Christ’s death on the cross. Has then every one who boasts of freedom become a believer in this crucified Saviour? And has he also, by means of this faith, become spiritual, so that he exhibits the fruit of the Spirit within him? It is only against such that the law is not.

Galatians 5:24. “Have crucified the flesh.”—Starke:—This word well expresses how sin must, little by little, be disabled and slain, for the crucified man did not die at once; he was first made fast with nails to the cross and then kept there, till through the loss of blood and through hunger and thirst he became weaker and weaker, and finally died. In the beginning of repentance the old man is nailed to the cross, and then in conversion he is fastened to it anew, when he gets a hand or a foot free; the soul carefully avoiding all occasions whereby evil lusts can be aroused, until indwelling sin is more and more disabled by all manner of acts of repentance and devotion, which are contrary to corrupt nature, which acts must extend through the whole life. But now all power to crucify the flesh is to be derived from Christ’s death on the cross.

Rieger:—They that have ceased from the law and all endeavors to obtain life and righteousness therefrom, and on the other hand belong to Christ and accept Him as the source of their life and holiness, such keep their flesh crucified. They are and live yet in the flesh, to be sure, and so experience how close sin cleaves and how heavy it weighs; they experience the enticements of inward lust, but they have learned from the gospel the meaning of God in the cross of Christ, and have believed it, and can believe the judgment executed on the body of their Redeemer as in God’s eyes in force also against their own flesh. And indeed they desire no rest for the flesh, but impose on it the curse, which through Christ’s cross is imposed thereon, and behold this wearisome and painful dying with a hope gathered out of the gospel.

On Galatians 5:13-15. Christianity and Freedom: (1) How little we have occasion, on behalf of freedom, to repent of being Christians and becoming Christians more and more; (2) how deeply we must rue that freedom which we do not establish and confirm by the power of Christ.—The Christian is free and yet a servant of all.—The right union of Freedom and Love (1) needful (2) difficult.—By love serve one another! (1) An actual (2) but also a blessed service.

On Galatians 5:16-24 : Walk in the Spirit, etc., ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh: (1) the lust of the flesh, (2) the resisting of it in the Spirit.—The walk in the Spirit; (1) is not accomplished without conflict (Galatians 5:17) (2) but saves from destruction (Galatians 5:19-21), (3) leads to a glorious goal (Galatians 5:22).—With his exhortations to walk in the Spirit (1) the Apostle places us upon a fearful battle-field (Galatians 5:17), (2) gives us the view into a frightful abyss (Galatians 5:19 sq.), (3) leads us into a lovely garden (Galatians 5:22 sq.). The conflict of the flesh and the Spirit: (1) in what does it consist? (2) to what should it impel?—Temptations through the flesh must come: despond not!—but must be combatted and overcome through the Spirit: be not careless!—There is no believer so holy or strong that he does not feel his flesh, but also none so weak that he cannot withstand it.—The motions of the flesh a damper to pride, a testimony against self-devised spiritualism.—Three times three fruits of the Spirit; a lovely garland.—To have crucified the flesh a token that one is Christ’s.—Who can crucify his flesh? Only he who is Christ’s.—The crucifying of the flesh (1) takes place indeed, when one is Christ’s, but (2) does not of itself make certain that one is Christ’s.

Kapff:—Under what law is the believer? (1) Not under that of the flesh, (2) not under that of Moses, but (3) under that of the Spirit.—Rautenberg:—The crucifixion of the flesh: a token of true Christianity, a work of the Holy Ghost, a victory of Christian freedom, a progress to inward peace.—In Lisco:—The conflict of the Spirit with the flesh: (1) Where does it arise? Only where a life in the Spirit is begun. (2) Why is it necessary? a) On account of the inward incompatibility of flesh and Spirit, b) on account of the consequences, which proceed therefrom, good or evil fruits. (3) How should it end? By the Spirit’s overcoming the flesh.—The walk in the Spirit: (1) It kills the works of the flesh, (2) it brings in its place the fruits of the Spirit.—Flesh or Spirit? Choose! (1) The flesh is thy destruction; (2) the Spirit creates divine life; (3) as Christians we are bound to the life of the Spirit.—(Fast-day Sermon): The call on Fast-day: the works of the flesh are manifest. (1) What works are works of the flesh: (2) what those have to expect, who do such works.—(Whit-Sunday Sermon): We are partakers of the Holy Spirit only when we do the works of the Spirit.—Genzken:—What do we yet lack of a walk in the Spirit? (1) The beginning is, that the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, and many have not even advanced so far; (2) the next step is, that we no more fulfil the lusts of the flesh, and many are not even ashamed of the manifest works of the flesh; (3) the consummation is, that we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, and from that we are all yet far distant.—Greiner:—Flesh and Spirit: (1) they are contrary one to the other; (2) their ways lead asunder in time and eternity.—Engelhard:—The life of that man, who is ruled by the Spirit of God: (1) He breaks with sin and mortifies daily the old man; (2) he is filled with the fruits of righteousness, which do not conflict with the law, but which can never be accomplished under the dominion of the law; (3) and receives accordingly the most excellent of all rewards, the inheritance of the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:13-24. Frantz:—Beware that ye do not, through freedom, give a handle to the flesh, for (1) freedom in Christ is not without law; it has its law, only not in the members, but in Christ, which law is love. (2) It is not without control; but its control is exercised not by the flesh, but by the Spirit.

Footnotes:

Galatians 5:13; Galatians 5:13.—[It seems better to retain the Greek order, which places ἀδελφοί at the end of the clause. The aorist ἐκλήθητε may be rendered by the English perfect, but Ellicott gives the simple past tense as above.—R.]

Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:14.—Rec: πληροῦται. The correct reading is that of Lachmann,Tischendorf: πεπλήρωται. So א. [A.B.C. and modern editors.—R.]

Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:14.—Ἐν ὑμῖν before ἐν ἐνὶ λόγω is not sufficiently supported.

Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:14.—[Lightfoot: “The received text has ἑαυτόν which some would retain against the authority of the best MSS., on the ground that it was altered by scribes ignorant of this usage of ἑαυτοῦ for the first and second persons. The case however with respect to the New Testament seems to stand thus; that whereas (1) in the plural we always find ἑαυτῶν. etc., never ἡμῶν αὐτῶν, ὑμῶν αὐτῶν etc., as mere reflexives, yet (2) in the singular there is not one decisive instance of ἑαυτοῦ in the first or second persons; the authority of the best MSS. being mostly against it. See A. Buttmann, p. 99.”—R.]

Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:16.—[Πνεύματι. The normal dative (Meyer); the instrumental dative (Schmoller). In either case “by” not “in.”—R.]

Galatians 5:17; Galatians 5:17.—Ταῦτα γά ρ is to be preferred to ταῦτα δέ, as better attested. [The latter which is the reading of the Rec., and Lachmann is probably a correction, to avoid the repetition of γάρ. The Rec. and Lachmann also read ἀντίκ. ἀλλήλους, on insufficient authority; א. K. L.: the order is reversed in most MSS. and by the best modern editors.—R.]

Galatians 5:17; Galatians 5:17.—[Ἴνα is considered telic here as usually, by the best commentators. “So that” must be rejected. See Exeg. Notes.—R.]

Galatians 5:19; Galatians 5:19.—[Ἄτινα has here a classifying force (Ellicott).—R.]

Galatians 5:19; Galatians 5:19.—Μοιχεία of the Rec. is to be rejected with Iachmann, Tischendorf. [So א. A.B.C. Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Wordsworth, Lightfoot.—R.]

Galatians 5:20; Galatians 5:20.—Rec: ἔρεις, ζήλοι; the singular changed into the plural, apparently on account of the neighboring plurals. א. has ἔρις, ζήλοι. [The variations are great; the best editors now adopt the singular in both these cases. On the meaning of the words in these lists ot vices and virtues, see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

Galatians 5:21; Galatians 5:21.—Φόνοι is to be retained, the preponderance of authority is in its favor. [Omitted in א. B. by Tischendorf, bracketted by Lachmann, Alford and Lightfoot. Retained by Meyer and Ellicott, on the authority of A. C. D. E. F. G. K., most cursives and versions. The similarity in souud to the preceding word is quite as much an argument for retaining as for rejecting it.—R.]

Galatians 5:21; Galatians 5:21.—[Τὰ τοιαῦτα. “Such things as these,” “all such things.” “The article with τοιοῦτος denotes a known person or thing, or the whole class of such, but not an undefined individual out of the class; as in that case τοιοῦτος is anarthrous” (Ellicott). So in Galatians 5:23.—R.

Galatians 5:21; Galatians 5:21.—[Δέ must be rendered “now” or “but”, not “and.” The two classes of deeds have been set forth, and this verse is a practical application.—R.]

[27][On the division of the Epistle, see Introd. § 4. While we must guard agaunst too formal division of the Epistle, we may distinguish it into parts without separating them or breaking the current of thought. The memory is much assisted by the convenlent division of Lightfoot: personal, doctrinal and practical. Whether the last named part begins with Galatians 5:1, or here, is perhaps immaterial, since such distinction into parts involves neither the supposition that the Apostle made such formal distinction, nor an arbitrary view of the Epistle as a whole. We may mar the unity quite as much by insisting on too strict sub-division into sections.—R.]

[28][Schmoller probably means to make an argument ab impossibili here, but the form of it is not pleasing. Certainly it were better to say: Paul could not mean this, for it is contrary to the teachings of his Master and inconsistent with his own statements elsewhere. Meyer remarks: “That, by citing only the command of love to our neighbour, Paul does not exclude the command of love to God, is self-evident to the Christian consciousness from the necessary connection of love to God and to our neighbor (comp. 1 John 4:20; 1 Corinthians 8:1-3); the context (Galatians 5:13-15) led Paul to speak of the latter only.”—R.]

[29][“Observe the prominence always given to condemnations of this deadly sin, it being one of the things which the old pagen world deemed as merely ἀδιάφορα.”—Ellicott.—R.]

[30][Wordsworth:—“The word ἐρίθεια is from ἔριθος, a laborer for hire, 1. a mercenary; and 2. one who hires him self to a cabal for party purpose; and therefore signifies 3. a venal partisan; such as the factions of gladiators, and other ruffians hired by rival candidates at elections to intimidate the voters in the Roman forum. Hence ἐρίθεια signifies venal partisanship.”—R.]

[31][Hence well expressed by “benignity.” So Jerome, who renders this and the following word respectively: benignitas, bonitas. See Trench, Synon. 2d series.—The remarks of Lightfoot are collated; the parts included in parenthesis are taken from his comments on the separate triads.—R.]

[32][Whether theologians agree about terms or not, they all must recognize the fact that in so far as any law of God has a directly ethical purpose, it must continue to be binding on those who are Christ’s, not binding as a law, with condemnatory power, so as to bring us again into bondage, after Christ has made us free, nor even binding on the conscience, so far as its punitive functions are concerned, but binding us with the cords of love, the bands of a man, a rule for the loving children of a Father, a guide for the glad gratitude of those whom Christ has made free. Thus far all that was of those whom Christ has made free. Thus far all that was of permanent ethical purpose in the Old Testament law must remain “the law of Christ;” to admit a change in God’s ethics is repugnant to our souls. How much this includes is the practical questions, which the New Testament itself answers in the life of Christ and the teachings of His Apostles. That it includes the Decalogue, that each and all of those Commandments are still in force, as a law, in the sense indicated above, there can be no reasonable doubt.—R.]