Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 5

Galatians 5:1. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ, ᾖ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσε, στήκετε] So Griesb. (reading, however, Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς), Rück., Tisch., Wieseler. But Elz., Matth., Winer, Rinck, Reiche, read τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ οὖν, ᾗ Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε, στήκετε. Lachm., followed by Usteri, reads τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν. στήκετε οὖν, which was also approved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb.; and Winer does not reject it. Scholz gives τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ, ᾗ Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε, στήκετε οὖν. Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ, ᾗ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν to Galatians 4:31, and begins the new sentence with στήκετε οὖν. So also Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed by Hofmann, must be held to be the original one: (1) because amidst the numerous variations it has a decided preponderance of testimony in its favour, for ᾗ is wanting in A B C D* א and 8 min., Dam., and οὖν after στήκετε is written in A B C D* (in the Greek) F G א and some 10 min., Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas, ms. Aug. Ambrosiast.; (2) because from it the origin of the rest of the readings can be explained easily, naturally, and without prejudice to the witnesses—namely, from the endeavour to connect τῇ ἐλευθ. ἡμ. Χ. ἠλευθ. immediately with Galatians 4:31. Thus in some cases τῇ was merely changed into ᾗ (F G, It. Vulg. Goth, and Fathers); in others ᾗ, was inserted before ἡμᾶς (Griesb.), allowing τῇ to remain. The relative thus introduced led others, who had in view the right connection with στήκετε, either to omit the οὖν (after στήκετε), which the presence of the relative rendered awkward (E, Vulg. It. Syr. p. Fathers; Griesb., Rück., Tisch.), or to place it immediately after ἐλευθερίᾳ, (C*** K L, min., Fathers; Elz.). Lastly, the transposition Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς was an involuntary expedient to place the subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight of the evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the different readings of our passage from the accidental omission in writing of H before Ημας (Tisch., Wieseler), especially since very ancient witnesses, in which ᾗ is wanting, read not ἡμᾶς Χριστός, but Χριστός ἡμᾶς (as C L א** Marcion, Chrys.).

Galatians 5:3. πάλιν] is wanting in D* F G, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Ambrosiast. The omission is caused by the similarity of the παντί which follows.

Galatians 5:7. ἐνέκοψε] The Elz. reading ἀνέκοψε is opposed to all the uncials and most min., and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill., Bengel, Matth., Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to defend it.

The τῇ which follows is wanting in A B א*. But the article forms a necessary part of the idea (comp. Galatians 2:5; Galatians 2:14), and the omission must be looked upon as a mere error in copying. Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole τῇ ἀληθ. μὴ πείθεσθαι to be not genuine; and the latter is disposed, instead of it, to defend μηδενὶ πείθεσθε, which is found in F G, codd. Lat. in Jer. and some vss. and Fathers, after πείθεσθαι, but is manifestly a gloss annexed to the following ἡ πεισμονή κ.τ.λ. Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of Galatians 5:7 to be an inserted gloss.

Galatians 5:9. ζυμοῖ] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read δολοῖ. Approved by Mill, and Valck. Schol. II. p. 178. An interpretation, because in this passage the leaven represents something corrupting (otherwise in Matthew 13:33). Comp. on 1 Corinthians 5:6.

Galatians 5:14. ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read ὑμῖν, and D* E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ. Marcion’s reading is of antinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the following ἐν τῷ); but the ὑμῖν introduced by it became subsequently blended with the original text.

πληροῦται] Defended by Reiche; but A B C א, min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) Damasc. Aug. read πεπλήρωται. Justly; the meaning of the perfect (which is also adopted by Lachm., Rück., Schott, Tisch.) was not apprehended by mechanical transcribers.

σεαυτόν] Elz., Matth., Schott, read ἑαυτόν. Certainly in opposition to A B C D E K א, min., and Greek Fathers; but the pronoun of the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in the LXX. Leviticus 19:18, there is the same variety of readings), and indeed the final letter of the foregoing ὡς might easily lend support to the σεαυτόν: hence ἑαυτόν is to be restored, in opposition to Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on Romans 13:9.

Galatians 5:17. ταῦτα δέ] Lachm. and Schott read ταῦτα γάρ, following B D* E F G *, 17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that the continuative δέ might easily appear more suitable, γάρ is to be preferred.

Galatians 5:19 f. μοιχεία] is wanting before πορν. in A B C א*, min., and many vss. and Fathers; 76, 115, Epiph. Chrys. Theophyl. have it after πορνεία. In opposition to Reiche, but with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it is to be deleted, since it has been introduced, although at a very early date (It. Or.), most probably by the juxtaposition of the two words in other passages (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; comp. Hosea 2:2), well known to the transcribers.

ἔρεις, ζῆλοι] Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence; the plurals were introduced in conformity to the adjoining.

Galatians 5:21. φόνοι] is wanting in B א, 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several Fathers, but in no version. Rejected by Mill, Seml., and Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account of the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as easily be omitted, as it might be added from Romans 1:29. Hence the preponderance of witnesses determines the point, and that in favour of the retention.

CONTENTS.

Exhortation to stedfastness in Christian freedom, and warning against the opposite course. If they allowed themselves to be circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing, and they would be bound to the law as a whole; by legal justification they would be severed from Christ and from grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness (Galatians 5:1-6). Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy of the readers, respecting whom, however, Paul cherishes good confidence; whereas he threatens judgment against the seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no sense his (Galatians 5:7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation to the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a demeanour actuated by mutual love (Galatians 5:13-15); whereupon he then enters into a detailed explanation to the effect that the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the guiding power of their conduct (Galatians 5:16-25). After this, special moral exhortations begin (Galatians 5:26).

Galatians 5:1. Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν] On this reading, see the critical notes. The sentence forms, with Galatians 4:31, the basis of the exhortation which follows, στήκετε οὖν κ.τ.λ. See on Galatians 4:31. For freedom, in order that we should be free and should remain so, that we should not again become subject to bondage, Christ has set us free (Galatians 4:1-7), namely, from the bondage of the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (Galatians 4:3). The dative τῇ ἐλευθ. is therefore commodi, not instrumenti. Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 155; Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr. By so taking it, and by attending to the emphasis, which lies not on Χριστός, but on the τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ following immediately after τῆς ἐλευθέρας in Galatians 4:31, we obviate entirely the objection of Rückert (comp. Matthies and Olshausen) that Paul must have written: Χ. ἡμᾶς ἐλευθερὶᾳ ἠλευθέρωσεν, or εἰς ἐλευθ., or τῇ ἐλευθ. ταύτῃ, or ἣν ἔχομεν, or some other addition of the kind.

στήκετε οὖν] stand fast therefore, namely, in the freedom, which is to be inferred from what goes before; hence the absence of connection with τῇ ἐλευθ. does not produce any obscurity or abruptness (in opposition to Reiche). On the absolute στήκετε, which obtains its reference from the context, comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

καὶ μὴ πάλιν κ.τ.λ.] and be not again held in a yoke of bondage. Previously they had been (most of them) in the yoke of heathenism; now they were on the point of being held in the yoke of Mosaism (only another kind of the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου). The yoke is conceived as laid on the neck: Acts 15:10; Sir 51:26; Dem. 322. 12; Hom. H. Cer. 217. As to πάλιν, comp. on Galatians 4:9. δουλείας denotes the characteristic quality belonging to the yoke. Comp. Soph. Aj. 924: πρὸς οἷα δουλείας ζυγὰ χωροῦμεν. Eur. Or. 1330; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 770 E: δούλειον ζυγόν, Ep. 8, p. 354 D; Dem. 322. 12; Herod. vii. 8.

ἐνέχεσθαι, with the dative (Dem. 1231. 15; 2Ma 5:18; 3Ma 6:10) or with ἐν (Dem. 1069. 9), is the proper expression for those who are held either in a physical (net or the like) or ethical (law, dogma, emotion, sin, or the like) restriction of liberty, so that they cannot get out. See Kypke in loc., and Markland ad Lys. V. p. 37, Reisk. Here, on account of the idea of a yoke, the reference is physical, but used as a figurative representation for that which is mental, which affects the conscience.

Note.

If we take the reading of the Recepta, and of Griesbach and his followers (see the critical notes), we must explain it: “In respect of the freedom, [therefore], for which Christ has set us free, stand fast, and become not again, etc.!”—so that τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ is to be taken like τῇ πίστει in 2 Corinthians 1:24 and Romans 4:20, and ᾗ as the dative commodi (Morus, Winer, Reiche). ᾗ might also (with the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Rückert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and many others) be taken as ablative (instrumentally): “qua nos liberavit,” after the analogy of the classical expressions ζῆν βίῳ, ὗσαι ὕδατι κ.τ.λ. (Bernhardy, p. 107; Lobeck, Paral, p. 523 ff.), and of the frequent use both in the LXX. and the N.T. (Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]) of “cognate” nouns in the dative. But this mode of expression does not occur elsewhere with Paul, not even in 1 Thessalonians 3:9. According to Schott, Ewald, and Matthias, who join it to Galatians 4:31 (see the critical notes), we get the meaning: “We are not children of a bond-maid, but of the free woman through the freedom, with which Christ made us free; stand fast therefore.” Thus τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἧ ἡμᾶς Χριστ. ἠλευθ. becomes a self-evident appendage; and Χριστός receives an emphasis, just as in Galatians 3:13, which its position does not warrant.

Galatians 5:2. Paul now in a warning tone reveals to them the fearful danger to which they are exposed. This he does by the address ἴδε in the singular (comp. Soph. Trach. 824), exciting the special attention of every individual reader, and with the energetic, defiant interposition of his personal authority: ἐγὼ Παῦλος, on which Theophylact well remarks: τὴν τοῦ οἰκείου προσώπου ἀξιοπιστίαν ἀντὶ πάσης ἀποδείξεως τίθησι. Comp. 2 Corinthians 10:1; Ephesians 3:1; Colossians 1:23ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε] To be pronounced with special emphasis. The readers stood now on the very verge of obeying thus far—and therefore to the utmost—the suggestions of the false apostles in taking upon them the yoke of the law, after having already consented to preliminary isolated acts of legal observance (Galatians 4:10).

Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει] comp. Galatians 2:21. Χριστὸς is emphatically placed first, and immediately after περιτ. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks: ὁ περιτεμνόμενος ὡς νόμον δεδοικὼς περιτέμνεται, ὁ δὲ δεδοικὼς ἀπιστεῖ τῇ δυνάμει τῆς χάριτος, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστῶν οὐδὲν κερδαίνει παρὰ τῆς ἀπιστουμένης. On such a footing Christ cannot be Christ, the Mediator of salvation. Paul’s judgment presupposes that circumcision is adopted, not as a condition of a holy life (Holsten), but as a condition of salvation, which was the question raised among the Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:5; Acts 15:1; Acts 16:3. Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 248. The future, ὠφελήσει, which is explained by others (de Wette, Hofmann, and most) as referring to the consequence generally, points to the nearness of the Parousia and the decision of the judgment. Comp. Galatians 5:5 : ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης, just as previously the idea of the κληρονομία in Galatians 4:30.

Galatians 5:3. With regard to the judgment just expressed, Χριστὸς οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσει, Paul now, with increasing emotion (μαρτύρομαι, παντὶ ἀνθρ. περιτ.), gives an explanation (Galatians 5:3-4) which clearly discloses the entire certainty of this negation.

The δέ is not potius (Schott), because it is not preceded by any antagonistic assertion, but is the autem which leads on to more detailed information (Herm. ad Viger. p. 845).

μαρτύρομαι] in the sense of μαρτυρῶ, as in Acts 20:26; Ephesians 4:17; Joseph. Bell. iii. 8. 3; and also Plat. Phil. p. 47 D, while in classical authors it usually means to summon as a witness and obtestor. Paul testifies that which with divine certainty he knows. The context does not warrant us to supply θεόν, with Bretschneider and Hilgenfeld.

πάλιν] not contra (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Koppe, Wahl; comp. Usteri), which is never its meaning (see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 166 f.), but again, not however in the sense that Galatians 5:3 is described as a repetition of what was said in Galatians 5:2 (Calvin, Castalio, Calovius, Wolf, Zachariae, Paulus, and others), which it is not; nor in the sense that Paul is thinking merely of the testifying in itself, and not of its purport (Hofmann; comp. Fritzsche, Winer, de Wette),—an interpretation which cannot but be the less natural, the more necessarily that which is attested πάλιν stands in essential inner connection with the axiom which had been previously expressed (“probatio est proximae sententiae sumta ex loco repugnantium,” Calvin); but in the sense that Paul calls to the remembrance of his readers his last presence among them (the second), when he had already orally assured them of what he here expresses (Moldenhauer, Flatt, Rückert, Olshausen, Wieseler). Comp. on Galatians 1:9, Galatians 4:16.

παντὶ ἀνθρ. περιτ.] stands in a climactic relation to the foregoing ὑμῖν, remorselessly embracing all: to every one I testify, so that no one may fancy himself excluded from the bearing of the statement. According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, with whom Schott and others agree, Paul has wished to avoid the appearance κατʼ ἔχθραν ταῦτα λέγεσθαι; but in this view the whole climactic force of the address is misunderstood.

ὅλον] has the emphasis; comp. Jam 2:10. Circumcision binds the man who accepts it to obey the whole law, because it makes him a full member of the covenant of the law, a proselyte of righteousness, and the law requires from those who are bound to it its entire fulfilment (Galatians 3:10). Probably the pseudo-apostles had sought at least to conceal or to weaken this true and—since no one is able wholly to keep the law (Acts 13:38; Acts 15:10; Romans 8:3)—yet so fearful consequence of accepting circumcision, as if faith in Christ and acceptance of circumcision might be compatible with one another. On the contrary, Paul proclaims the decisive aut … aut. The state of the man who allows himself to be circumcised stands in a relation contradictory to the state of grace (comp. Romans 6:14 f., Romans 11:6).

Galatians 5:4. But whosoever is justified through the law—a way of justification which necessarily follows from the already mentioned obligation—is separated from Christ, etc. A complete explanation is thus given as to the Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. Asyndetic (without δέ), and reverting to the second person, the language of Paul is the more emphatic and vivid.

κατηργήθητε] In the first clause the stress is laid upon the dread separation which has befallen them, in the second on the benefit thereby lost,—a striking alternation of emphasis. The pregnant expression, καταργεῖσθαι ἀπό τινος (comp. Romans 9:3; 2 Corinthians 11:3; see generally, Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 250), is to be resolved into καταργεῖσθαι καὶ χωρίζεσθαι ἀπό τινος, that is, to come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto subsisting with any one, so that we are parted from him. Just the same in Romans 7:2; Romans 7:6. Hence the sense is: your connection with Christ is annulled, cancelled; ἀπεκόπητε, Oecumenius. Justification by the law and justification for Christ’s sake are in truth opposita (works—faith), so that the one excludes the other.

οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε] ye who are being justified through the law. The directly assertive and present δικαιοῦσθε is said from the mental standpoint of the subjects concerned, in whose view of the matter the way of salvation is this: “through the law, with which our conduct agrees (comp. Galatians 3:11), we become just before God.” Hence the concrete statement is not to be weakened either by taking δικαιοῦσθαι in the sense of ζητεῖν δικαιοῦσθαι, Galatians 2:17 (Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius, and earlier expositors), or by attributing a hypothetical sense to οἵτινες (Hofmann, who erroneously compares Thuc. v. 16. 1). Whomsoever Paul hits with his οἵτινες κ.τ.λ., he also means.

τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε] that is, ye have forfeited the relation of being objects of divine grace. The opposite: ὑπὸ χάριν εἶναι (Romans 6:14), to which divine grace faith has led (Romans 5:2). On the figurative ἐκπίπτειν, comp. 2 Peter 3:17; Plut. Gracch. 21: ἐκπεσεῖν καὶ στερεσθαι τῆς πρὸς τὸν δῆμον εὐνοίας, Polyb. xii. 14. 7; Lucian, Cont. 14; Sir 31:4. Whoever becomes righteous by obedience to the law, becomes se no longer by the grace of God (δωρεάν, Romans 3:24), but by works according to desert (Romans 4:11; Romans 4:16; Romans 11:6); so that thus his relation of grace towards God (which is capable of being lost) has ceased.

Galatians 5:5. Ground e contrario for the judgment passed in Galatians 5:4 on those becoming righteous by the law; derived, not generally from what makes up the essence of the Christian state (Hofmann), but specially from the specific way in which Paul and those like him expect to be justified. The reasoning presupposes the certainty, of which the apostle was conscious, that the ἡμεῖς are those who are not separated from Christ and have not fallen from grace.

ἡμεῖς] we, on our part: “qui a nobis dissentiunt, habeant sibi,” Bengel.

πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως] is not (with Luther) to be considered as one idea (“Spiritu, qui ex fide est”), since there is no contrast with any other spirit, but rather as two points opposed to the ἐν νόμῳ in Galatians 5:4 : “by means of the Spirit, from faith, we expect,” etc.; so that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent, and faith in Christ is the subjective source of our expectation. On πνεύματι, comp. Romans 7:6; Romans 8:4; Romans 8:15 f., Ephesians 1:13 f., Ephesians 2:22, et al.; and on ἐκ πίστεως, comp. Galatians 2:16, Galatians 4:22, Romans 1:17; Romans 3:22; Romans 9:30; Romans 10:6, et al. We must not therefore explain πνεύματι either as the spirit of man simply (with Grotius, Borger, Fritzsche, and others), or (comp. on Romans 8:4) as the spiritual nature of man sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Winer, Paulus, Rückert, and others; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hofmann); but similarly to Galatians 5:16, as the objective πνεῦμα ἅγιον, which is the divine principle of spiritual life in Christians, and which they have received ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως (Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:5, Galatians 4:6). And the Holy Spirit is the divine mainspring of Christian hope, as being the potential source of all Christian sentiment and Christian life in general, and as the earnest and surety of eternal life in particular (2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:14; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:23).

ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχ.] ἀπεκδέχεσθαι (Romans 8:19; Romans 8:23; Romans 8:25; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Php 3:20; 1 Peter 3:20) does not indeed denote that he who waits is wholly spent in waiting (Hofmann), but rather (comp. generally Winer, de verb. compos. IV. p. 14) the persistent awaiting, which does not slacken until the time of realization (C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 156). The genitive δικαιοσύνης is not appositionis (Wieseler), so that the sense would be: “the righteousness hoped for by us,” the genitive with ἐλπίς never being used in this way; but it is the genitive objecti: the hope of being justified, namely, in the judgment, where we shall be declared by Christ as righteous. At variance with the context, since justification itself is in question (see Galatians 5:4), others understand it as the genitive subjecti, as that which righteousness has to hope for,[224] that is, the hoped for reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life. So Pelagius, Beza, Piscator, Hunnius, Calovius, Bengel, Rambach, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Paulus, Windischmann, Reithmayr, and others; comp. also Weiss, bibl. Theol. pp. 333, 341. The fact that the δικαιοσύνη itself—that is, the righteousness of faith, and not that of a holy life (Holsten)—is presented as something future, need not in itself surprise us, because during the temporal life it exists indeed through faith, but may nevertheless be lost (see Galatians 5:2; Galatians 5:4), and is not yet a definitive possession, which it only comes to be at the judgment (Romans 8:33 f.). In a corresponding way, the υἱοθεσία, although it has been already entered upon through faith (Galatians 3:26, Galatians 4:5), is also the object of hope (Romans 8:23). This at the same time explains why Paul here speaks in particular of an ἐλπὶς δικαιοσύνης; he thereby indicates the difference between the certainty of salvation in the consciousness (Romans 8:24) of the true Christians, and the confidence, dependent upon works, felt by the legally righteous, who say: ἐν νόμῳ δικαιούμεθα, because in their case the becoming righteous is something in a continuous course of growth by means of meritorious obedience to the law. Lastly, the expression ἀπεκδέχεσθαι ἐλπίδα is not to be explained by the supposition that Paul, when he wrote ἐλπίδα, had it in his mind to make ἔχομεν follow (Winer, Usteri, Schott),—an interpretation which is all the more arbitrary, because there is no intervening sentence which might divert his thought,—but the hope is treated objectively (comp. on Colossians 1:5; Romans 8:24; Hebrews 6:18), so that ἀπεκδέχεσθαι ἐλπίδα belongs to the category of the familiar expressions ζῆν βίον, πιστεύειν δόξαν (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 ff.). Comp. Acts 24:15 : ἐλπίδα … ἣν καὶ αὐτὸ οὗτοι προσδέχονται, Titus 2:13; Job 2:9; Isaiah 28:10; 2Ma 7:14; Eur. Alc. 130: νῦν δέ τίνʼ ἔτι βίου ἐλπίδα προσδέχωμαι; Dem. 1468. 13: ἐλπίδα … προσδοκᾶσθαι. The Catholic doctrine of the gradual increase of righteousness (Trident. vi. 10. 24, Döllinger) is entirely un-Pauline, although favoured by Romang, Hengstenberg, and others. Justification does not, like sanctification, develope itself and increase; but it has, as its moral consequence (Galatians 4:6), sanctification through the Spirit, which is given to him who is justified by faith. Thus Christ is to us δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμός, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

[224] Hofmann, in fact, arrives at the same result, although he rejects the interpretation of the genitive as the gen. subjecti: “To wait for the blessing of righteousness already prepared for him, which constitutes the substance of his hope,”—consequently for the στέφανος of his δικαιοσύνη, 2 Timothy 4:8 (see Huther in loc. ed. 3).

Galatians 5:6. Warrant for the ἐκ πίστεως: for in Christ Jesus, in fellowship with Christ (in the relation of the ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι), neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail; the fact of a man being or not being circumcised is of no influence, but faith, which is operative through love, sc. ἰσχύει τι. The τι ἰσχύει is to be left in the same general and unlimited form in which it stands. Circumcision and uncircumcision are circumstances of no effect or avail in Christianity. And yet they were in Galatia the points on which the disturbance turned! On the faith active in love, which is the effective saving element in the state of the Christian, comp. 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Corinthians 13; also Jam 2:22. By means of this faith man is καινὴ κτίσις, Galatians 6:15. Bengel well says: “Cum fide conjunxit Galatians 5:5, spem, nunc amorem; in his stat totus Christianismus.” How very necessary it was for the Galatians that prominence should be given to the activity of faith in love, may be seen from Galatians 5:15; Galatians 5:20; Galatians 5:26. The passive view of ἐνεργουμ., which is given by the Fathers and many Catholics, such as Bellarmine, Estius, Reithmayr, in whom the interest of dogmatic controversy against the Protestants came to a great extent into play, is erroneous, because ἐνεργεῖσθαι in the N.T. is always middle (vim suam exserere). See on 2 Corinthians 1:6; Fritzsche, ad Rom. vii. 6, II. p. 18. It does not mean, “having been rendered energetic through love” (Reithmayr), but working through love, expressing thereby its vital power. Moreover, our passage is not at variance with justification solely by faith: “opera fieri dicit ex fide per caritatem, non justificari hominem per caritatem,” Luther. Comp. Calovius: “Formatam[225] etiam fidem apostolus refellit, cum non per caritatem formam suam accipere vel formari, sed per caritatem operosam vel efficacem esse docet. Caritatem ergo et opera non fidem constituere, sed consequi et ex eadem fluere certum est.” It must, however, be observed that love (the opposite of all selfishness) must be, from its nature, the continuous moral medium of the operation of faith in those who are thereby justified,[226] 1 Corinthians 13:1 ff. Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 192; Romang, in Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 90 ff., who, however, concedes too much to the idea of fides formata.

[225] The “fides formata” is also found here by Bisping, and especially Reithmayr, following the Trid. Sess. vi. 7, de justif. See, on the other hand, Apol. Conf. Aug. p. 81 f.

[226] Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol. p. 232 ff.

Galatians 5:7-9. How naturally—and, in conformity with the apostle’s lively emotion, asyndetically—the utterance of this axiom of the Christian character and life, which the readers had formerly obeyed, is followed by disapproving surprise at the fact that they had not remained faithful to it (Galatians 5:7), and then by renewed warning against the false teachers, based on the ungodly nature (Galatians 5:8) and the destructive influence (Galatians 5:9) of their operations!

ἐτρέχετε καλῶς] that is, your Christian behaviour—your Christian life and effort—was in course of excellent development. A figurative mode of presenting the activity of spiritual life very frequently used by the apostle. Comp. Galatians 2:2; Php 3:11.

τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψε] A question of surprise (comp. Galatians 3:1): who hindered you? Comp. 1 Thessalonians 2:18; Romans 15:22; 1 Peter 3:7. In Polyb. xxi. 1. 12 it is used with the dative. So also Hippocr. pp. 28, 35; for it means properly: to make an incision.

τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι] from obeying the truth, that is, the true gospel, according to which faith alone is that which justifies, μή is employed, as usual, after verbs of hindering. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 810 f.; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 867; Winer, p. 561 [E. T. 755]. The infinitive with μή denotes that which, so far as the will of the hinderer is concerned, shall not take place.

ἡ πεισμονὴ κ.τ.λ.] After the surprise comes the warning. ἡ πεισμονή occurs again only in Apoll. Synt. p. 195. 10, in Eustath. (Il. ι, p. 637. 5, a, pp. 21, 26, et al.; see Wetstein), and in the Fathers (Ignat. ad Romans 3 interpol.; Just. Mart. Ap. I. 53, p. 87; Epiph. Haer. xxx. 21; Chrysostom, ad 1 Thess. i. 4). Whether, however, the word is to be understood actively, as persuasion, or passively, as compliance, is a point which must be decided in the several passages by the context. In this passage it is understood as persuasion by MSS. of the Itala (suasio), Vulgate (persuasio), Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Holsten, and others; on the other hand, Chrysostom (οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐκάλεσεν ὑμᾶς ὁ καλῶν, ὥστε οὕτω σαλεύεσθαι), Oecumenius (τὸ πεισθῆναι τοῖς λέγουσιν ὑμῖν περιτέμνεσθαι), Theophylact (τὸ πείθεσθαι τοῖς ἀπατῶσιν), Luther (1519 and 1524; but in 1538, and in his translation: such persuasion), and others, including Morus, Winer, Rückert, Matthies, Olshausen, Reiche, Hofmann, Reithmayr, explain it as compliance,[227] which, however, does not fit the word used absolutely. The latter rather yields the thought: The persuasion is not of your caller, is not a thing proceeding from God (see, on the contrary, 2 Corinthians 11:15). Paul would have this applied to the mode of operation of the pseudo-apostles, who worked upon the Galatians by persuasion (talking over), so that they did not remain obedient to the truth, but turned ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος αὐτοὺς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ to an ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον (Galatians 1:6). If it were to be taken as compliance, some more precise definition must have been appended;[228] because compliance is ungodly not in itself, but only according to the nature of the demand, the motive, and the moral circumstances generally. Some have made it to mean credulitas (Estius, Winer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others), but the sense of the word is thus altered. The talking over, however, did not need anything added, since it is of itself, in matters of faith at any rate, objectionable; hence it was very superfluous in Luther, Grotius, and many others, to take the article as demonstrative. Moreover, the active sense is excellently adapted to the designation of God by ὁ καλῶν ὑμᾶς, inasmuch as the talking over is a mode of operating on men characteristically different from the divine calling: the former not befitting the divine dignity like the latter; the former bound up with human premeditation, art, and importunity, taking place ἐν πειθοῖς σαφίας λόγοις (1 Corinthians 2:4), counteracting free self-determination, and so forth. Comp. Soph. Fragm. 744, Dind.: δεῖνον τὸ τᾶς Πειθοῦς πρόσωπον. Aesch. Agam. 385: βιᾶται δʼ ἁ τάλαινα πειθώ. Bengel, Morus, and de Wette understand it as obstinacy (the “clinging to prejudices,” de Wette), making it correspond with the foregoing τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μή πείθεσθαι. So also Ewald, although translating it as self-confidence, and comparing πίσυνος. But the passages cited above from Eustathius do not make good this signification; and, in particular, Od. x. p. 785. 22, is quite improperly adduced in its favour (see Reiche, p. 79 f.). Reiche, preferring the signification compliance, takes the sentence as asking indignantly: “Annon assensus, obsequium veritati praestandum e Deo est, qui vos vocavit?” But why should Paul have expressed this by the singular word πεισμονή not used by him elsewhere, and not by the current and unambiguous πίστις or ὑπακοὴ τῆς πίστεως? By employing the latter, he would, in fact, have also suited the foregoing πείθεσθαι.

The καλῶν ὑμᾶς is neither Christ (Theophylact, Erasmus, Michaelis, and others) nor the apostle (Locke, Paulus), but God. See on Galatians 1:6. The present participle is not to be understood of a continuing call “ad resipiscentiam” (Beza),—a view at variance with the constant use of the absolute καλεῖν (Galatians 1:6, Galatians 5:13; Romans 8:30, et al.); nor does it represent the calling as lasting up to the time of their yielding compliance against the truth (Hofmann), which would be an idea foreign to the N.T. (Galatians 1:6; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 386 f.); but it is to be taken substantivally, your caller, the definition of the time being left out of view. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 5:24; Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 444]. God, the caller to everlasting salvation, has assigned to every one, by calling him at his conversion (Php 3:14), the “normam totius cursus” (Bengel).

μικρὰ ζύμη κ.τ.λ.] The meaning of this proverbial warning (see on 1 Corinthians 5:6) is: “If the false apostles have, by means of their persuasion, succeeded in making even but a small beginning in the work of imparting to you erroneous doctrines or false principles, this will develope itself to the corruption of your whole Christian faith and life.” So, taking the figure with reference to doctrine, in substance also Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, explain μικρὰ ζύμη too specially of circumcision), Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, and many others, including Flatt and Matthies. It is true that the dogma of his opponents was in itself fundamentally subversive (as Wieseler objects); but its influence had not yet so far developed itself, that the ζύμη might not have been still designated relatively as μικρά. Others interpret it as referring to persons: “vel pauci homines perperam docentes possunt omnem coetum corrumpere,” Winer (comp. Theodoret, Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Locke, Bengel, Borger, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Windischmann, Reithmayr, and others); but against this it may be urged that the number of the false teachers, as it is in itself a matter of indifference, and does not acquire greater significance through their having intruded themselves from without, remains also unnoticed throughout the epistle, and the point in question was solely the influence of their teaching (comp. πεισμονή), which was the leaven threatening to spread destructively. Comp. Galatians 1:7 ff., Galatians 3:1.

[227] This view serves to explain the omission of the οὐκ in D*, min., Cod. lat. in Jer. and Sedul. Clar. Germ. Or. (once), Lucifer. Theodoret also appears not to have read it, as he gives the explanation: ἴδιον Θεοῦ τὸ καλεῖν, τὸ δὲ πείθεσθαι τῶν ἀκουόντων.

[228] At least ὑμῶν, which is actually read by Syr. Erp. codd. in Jer. Lucif. Aug. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Arm. has αὕτη γὰρ πεισμονή. Vömel and Hofmann seek to remove the indefiniteness by reading instead of the article the relative ἥ: which obedience. But, according to this view, ἣ πεισμ. must have been correlative to the foregoing πείθεσθαι (comp. Wis 16:2), and this consequently must have been defined not negatively, but positively, somewhat as if Paul, instead of τῇ ἀληθ. μὴ πείθεσθαι, had written ἑτέρῳ εὐαγγελίῳ πείθεσθαι. But having written τ. ἀληθ. μὴ πείθεσθαι, he must, in correlation with μὴ πείθισθαι, have continued relatively with ἣ ἀπείθεια.