Galatians 6

CHAPTER VI

Let each man look first to himself!

5:26) The absence of a connective helps to indicate the beginning of a new paragraph. The address ἀδελφοί belongs to 5:26 and not to 6:1; “brethren” is placed at the end as it is in 5:13; 6:18. Let us not be vainglorious, challenging each other, envying each other, brethren. How can “brethren” do such a thing! Paul comes to speak about direct personal admonitions in the use of our Christian liberty. This liberty is devoid of all selfishness.

The hortative subjunctive is softened by the fact that Paul includes himself; this agrees with 6:4, 5. B.-P. 669: Wir wollen keine Prahlhaense sein, let us not be braggarts. The word “vainglorious,” κενόδοξος, does not refer to empty (κενός), fictitious glory which the vainglorious person imagines to be real and genuine glory; the word denotes the praise which men seek without a genuine reason.

Persons who are covetous of all possible glorification on the part of men will thus challenge one another as though in combat, each wanting more credit and praise than the other receives. Back of this lies envy. Each will envy the other because of the praise he may obtain, especially if this is greater than his own. Phil. 2:3; Rom. 12:10b; 1 Pet. 5:5. The two participles are modal; they show how desire for honor among men manifests itself. “Brethren” indicates a new paragraph; more than that, “brethren” who are what the word means cannot and will not act in this manner, such actions are far beneath them.

Galatians 6:1

1 Those who are filled with unholy ambition would be glad to see a brother blemished by some transgression and do not see that they themselves are thereby already blemished in the worst manner. Paul applies the teaching of Jesus who bids one pull the beam out of his own eye before he attempts to extract the speck out of his brother’s eye. Cleanse thyself first and then help cleanse also the brother who may need thy service.

If also a person gets to be overtaken in some transgression, you on your part, the spiritual ones, do you proceed to restore such a one in a spirit of meekness, watching thyself lest thou also get to be tempted.

Paul visualizes such a case as one that may well happen “also,” i. e., besides the serious faults just mentioned. The idea that παράπτωμα means only a slight “fault” (A. V.), and that the word is chosen because of this mild meaning, cannot be upheld; this word is never used in the mild sense in the New Testament. Literally meaning, “something fallen by the side,” i. e., as an auto that goes off the road into a ditch, in our idiom it denotes a “transgression,” something that runs across or against what is right. The idea is something that is plainly wrong.

The aorist is punctiliar, “gets to be,” etc. Luther’s von einem Fehl uebereilet wuerde, which is followed by our versions, is quite correct and better than the proposed meaning, “gets to be caught or surprised in a transgression.” The sense cannot be: if you catch a brother doing wrong; it could at best be only: if the wrong catches or surprises him into a fall. Paul cannot mean as the opposite: if you surprise him “before” (πρό) he can cover up his wrong.

Paul is excluding wilful, deliberate sin; he deals with sins into which one may be “tempted” (last verb) in some way. Include Uebereilungssuenden but also sins that are due to ignorance, weakness, the deceptive power of sin, the persuasion and the bad example of others. Deliberate sin is a fall from grace; the transgression here referred to is one that has not as yet reached such a fall. In every case of this kind brotherly love must come to the rescue and put the auto on the road again.

Paul says emphatically: “you on your part, the spiritual ones,” i. e., who walk, are led, and keep in line with what is spirit (5:16, 18, 25), “do you proceed to restore such a one” (durative present). Only “the spiritual” can naturally do this restoring, but all of us ought to be spiritual. This is not a task for such as are not able to master their flesh. The present imperative is scarcely conative: “try to restore”; it may be iterative to include every case of this kind since “such a one” points to repeated cases that may now and again occur. Each case may also take time and patience.

We have “artisan” from this verb and its adjective, and κατά is perfective. The verb is used to designate framing a mechanism in an expert manner (Heb. 10:5; 11, 3) but more often to denote restoration, setting a broken limb, mending nets (Matt. 4:21), it is always an action that requires expert skill.

The task here mentioned requires spirituality in general and especially that feature of it listed in 5:23, “a spirit of meekness,” the opposite of arrogance and harshness. Pour in oil and wine and with gentle fingers bind up the wounds. The addition: “watching thyself lest thou also get to be tempted,” is not intended merely as a warning but as the motivation for meekness. We shall be meek in our treatment and show our expertness in this way when we remember that temptation may catch us also as it has caught this or that brother.

The aorist is effective, “be tempted into a fall.” Let no one think he cannot be so tempted. Let everyone think what he would need in case he, too, should fall. Such a spirit will quickly mend a brother’s case. It is, of course, remarked that Paul drops into the singular, which is not anacoluthic (R. 439) but intentional. Each must watch himself. “Watching yourselves” might be misunderstood as keeping an eye on each other—no, keep it on your own self.

Galatians 6:2

2 This thought of correcting a brother who has fallen into some transgression leads Paul to broaden his admonition. There are many other burdens which we ought to help each other to bear. The burdens of each other keep bearing and thus fulfill the law of Christ. Support each other in every way. Weakness, ignorance, inexperience, difficult surroundings, grief, affliction, etc., are some of these burdens. This is the blessedness of Christian fellowship that each is not left to bear his load alone, others will help him to bear it. When many come to the support of one, he will be helped, indeed.

Paul might have said, “Thus you will fulfill the law of Christ.” He retains the imperative but now uses the effective aorist: “and thus actually fulfill or fill up the law of Christ.” This is the law of love, John 13:34, the law of true Christian liberty. No law is able to produce this love, only the gospel can do it. James 2:8 calls it “the royal law,” it is devoid of all slavishness. This second imperative furnishes the motive for the first. Our one desire should ever be to fulfill the law of Christ to whom we belong (5:24), and bearing each other’s burdens is the way to do this.

Galatians 6:3

3 With “for” Paul substantiates his admonitions by pointing to the opposite. But not to the opposite action, refusal to bear the burdens of others; he at once goes deeper, namely to the delusion from which such refusal would spring. For if one deems he is something while he is nothing, his mind deludes himself. Self-satisfied, such a man thinks that he is something and needs no help from his brethren in bearing any burdens he may have, he himself being capable enough. Thus also he will have no heart for his burdened brethren. For what makes us tender and helpful, meek and kindly toward others is the realization that we ourselves are nothing and that we, too, need our brethren. Satisfaction with self makes poor helpers for those in need of fraternal support.

The natural negative with the participle is μηδέν, and this belongs to the protasis although some would construe it with the apodosis: “being nothing, his mind deludes himself.” But Paul does not claim that everyone is nothing. The fault he scores is that one who is nothing thinks himself something. It is no fault to be something and then to think accordingly in all honesty. Rom. 12:3 is plain regarding this. Grace made a good deal of Paul (1 Cor. 15:10), and he says so. “To be something, while being nothing” naturally goes together as it is placed together, and as every ordinary reader would read it. The compound verb contains “mind” and “deceive” and is found in no earlier writing. The whole protasis warrants the conclusion: “his mind deludes himself,” even his own mind which ought to know that nothing is never something.

Galatians 6:4

4 Against such empty-headed self-estimation (“vainglory,” 5:26) Paul advises: But his own work let each one keep testing, and then in regard to himself alone he will have his cause for boasting and not in regard to the other person. Instead of entertaining a vacuous opinion about himself, let him diligently test his own actual work. It is so easy to have a good opinion about oneself, but carefully weigh and test your actual accomplishment, that will tell the story. The singular “work” with the durative “keep testing” is the sum of accomplishment and this submitted to constantly renewed and revised testing.

By no means does Paul say, “Then you will have no reason for boasting.” The context is: “in regard to himself alone—and not in regard to the other person,” and this context does not permit us to have ἕξει mean, “he will hold off his boasting” because he will find that his whole work amounts to nothing. Quite the contrary. The diligent tester—Paul was one—will find that he does amount to something, that he actually has a definite καύχημα, “ground for boasting.” He will, of course, thank God for that. This constant tester may revise his estimate from time to time as he learns to make his tests more accurately by means of the Word. But, proceeding as he does, he will have his reason for boasting “as pertaining to himself alone (εἰς) and not as pertaining to the other person” (again εἰς). This does not mean that he will keep it to himself and will not, when occasion warrants or demands, tell anybody else.

For then Paul disobeyed this rule in 1 Cor. 15:10, and still more in 2 Cor. 11:21–12:6. What Paul says is that this tester will get no wrong estimate by pitting himself against the other person and deciding that he is better than that other person (definite article). That is what happened to the Pharisee in Luke 18:9–12. Wer sich an einem andern misst, vermisst sich. Besser. He will stand on his own feet, “for himself alone.”

Galatians 6:5

5 For each one will carry his own cargo (Acts 27:10 has this noun) without reference to any other person. “Will carry” matches “will have” in v. 4, both refer to the final judgment. “Their works do follow them,” Rev. 14:13. The opposite of vainglory (5:26) is not spurious self-abasement but genuine testing. Vainglory accompanies Judaistic and pharisaic work-righteousness; love which tests itself, which restores others accompanies gospel freedom. Carry this and its work as a blessed cargo.

Receiving and imparting spiritual excellence

Galatians 6:6

6 It would be a trivial thought so close to the end of the epistle to admonish the Galatians to be generous with their money. Yet this interpretation has been put upon this paragraph by not a few. The more the writer seeks to read Paul’s words in this light, the more he feels that he cannot accept this interpretation. Δέ does turn to a different subject, yet to one that is allied. Verses 4, 5 emphasize, as does the participial clause in v. 1, that each must look well to himself even as each must carry his own load. The allied subject is fellowship, but certainly not merely in money and in earthly goods. The word “poor” does not occur in v. 9, 10.

In v. 1 the spiritual life of an erring brother is at stake. In v. 3 we are to bear each other’s burdens, which is already one kind of fellowship, the one that steps in to share the other’s hardships. Paul now adds the rest of it: both our receiving and our imparting spiritual and moral good.

Moreover, let him who is being instructed in the Word be partaker with the one instructing him in all good things. The verb κοινωνέω is seemingly not properly understood. When this is regarded as meaning “communicate,” “all good things” become material, and somehow or other it is thought that Paul says that pupils should reward or pay their teachers, congregations their pastors. This idea is also put into κοινωνία, the noun, which is thought to mean “contribution” in Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16; this view has gotten into some of the dictionaries. The noun always = fellowship, and in the case of alms a fellowship that is exercised (Teilnahme, C.-K. 614) by means of alms. If the noun means “contribution” of alms in the four passages referred to, the verb would here practically make the teachers the recipients of alms, men who receive contributions as alms.

The verb means participem esse and then participem facere, to be or to make participant, the latter, however, in the sense “to share something with somebody, thereby not making him a fellow with oneself but oneself a fellow with him,” C.-K. 612, on our passage. Consider in connection with this C.-K. 4 on “all good things,” im Sinne von heilbringend, “good” as bringing salvation. The one who instructs has the good things; the one being instructed is to proceed to participate in them, in “all” of them. The riches are with the teacher of the Word, the poverty is with the pupil, and the pupil is to institute “fellowship” with the teacher so that he, the pupil, may be enriched.

Yes, there are not only burdens in which we must fellowship and aid those who bear them, there are also “good things,” spiritually and morally beneficial things, in which we should delight to have fellowship with those who possess these good things. Who should have more of them than our teachers? The burdens are painful, the good things are conducive to salvation, delightful. With those who have the burdens and with those who have these good things we should keep fellowship, making ourselves fellow with them.

This is just about the opposite of the common view. In addition to the context and the meaning of the words themselves one must note that when Paul writes about the one instructing, the Galatians would at once think of their first and greatest instructor together with his assistant who had twice been in their midst. Could Paul tell the Galatians in this letter that they owed material contributions to him and to his helpers? Could he do such a thing with no further word of explanation? Paul never took money for his work. When he speaks of this subject in 1 Cor. 9 he does so with the fullest and the clearest explanation. See the same thought in 2 Cor. 11:7–12, which should be read in its connection with 1 Cor. 9.

We ought also not to forget the Judaizers who also came as teachers, on whose greediness 2 Cor. 11:20 enlightens us. When such greedy fellows were working in Galatia, Paul could scarcely write the Galatians to share “in all things” (material) with their teachers. Aside from the implication involving himself, such an admonition would reflect on the true teachers in Galatia and suggest that they were also men who were to be paid.

We need not discuss “the one instructing.” Paul had not left the Galatian churches in an unorganized state; he had them elect elders and pastors who were qualified to teach. Apart from this office the gift of teaching was exercised as one of the most valuable gifts (Rom. 12:7); we constantly read of teaching in the Acts, note the teachers mentioned in Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28, 29. “In all good things” that were possessed by their instructors, Paul and his assistants among them, the Galatians should ever cultivate fellowship for their own enrichment. Then all would, indeed, be well with them. Pay for these teachers? There is no reason for mentioning it in this epistle.

Galatians 6:7

7 The efforts to have what Paul now says support the idea that teachers are to be duly rewarded show that this conception is untenable. Paul and his assistants took no such reward. Sowing for the flesh and sowing for the spirit deal with a subject that is far greater, namely with the desire for all good spiritual things in which the Galatians should seek to share.

Be not deceived, God is not sneered at. The verb means, “to turn up the nose at someone” in disdain. The implication is that God lets no one do that with impunity. Γάρ at once explains in what respect this warning is to be heeded. For what a person keeps sowing, that very thing also he shall reap. In 2 Cor. 9:6 the point to be stressed is the identity of what is sown and harvested. You cannot sow one thing and reap the opposite or even another thing. You will ever get the same thing, only very much more of it. Let nothing and nobody deceive you on that score. Turn up your nose to God on that if you will; inexorably you will be caught in the law of God.

The absence of the article with “God” seems to make the word qualitative: he who is no less than God. You may turn up your nose at men with impunity, but “God” is far different. The form σπείρῃ may be either present or aorist subjunctive, progressive sowing or just one act. Here it is the former, because ὁσπείρων follows, the present participle: “he who keeps sowing” not the aorist: “he who finishes one sowing.”

Galatians 6:8

8 First the universal law or principle and God back of it. Now the application to the whole spiritual life in the form of the reason that we should never be deceived, and that God is never mocked with impunity. Because the one sowing for his own fiesh, from this flesh will reap corruption; but the one sowing for the spirit, from this spirit will reap life eternal. The truth that what a person sows he will also reap is an axiom, it needs no proof, no “because.” This clause proves what the “for” clause written in v. 7 elucidates, namely that we must not be deceived as to any possibility of God’s being mocked.

We cannot understand those who refer “flesh” and “spirit” to two different kinds of soil and then say that the soil conditions the two harvests, and in addition to that state that Paul has not altered his figure from the seed to the soil. But it is not true that the soil decides the harvest. In Matt. 13:3, etc., we have four kinds of soil, but three kinds bring no harvest at all. These interpreters state that the seed is our material wealth: if we use that wealth by sowing it “into our own flesh,” our harvest will be according to this soil, while if we use our wealth by sowing it “into the spirit,” our harvest will be better. Supporting our teachers with our wealth is then thought to be sowing it “into the spirit.”

This interpretation makes the second soil “the Spirit.” But the idea that the Spirit is soil, and that this Spirit as soil is paired with flesh, flesh as also being soil, is untenable. We have already shown that Paul places “spirit” in opposition to “flesh”; see throughout 5:16–25 and the discussion under v. 16 and v. 25. Some direct attention to the fact that Paul writes “his own flesh” but not “his own spirit” since one cannot say “his own Spirit.” But Paul means that the flesh is always our very own while the spirit is the new nature that is born in us by divine operation. To call both our own would be a mistake, for it would say that the spirit is our own in the same sense as the flesh, which would not be true.

The two sowers are contrasted. The one sows “for or unto his own flesh,” the other “for or unto the spirit.” Εἰς is not “into,” one does not sow “into”; it is like the dative (R. 594). The one sows for his own flesh, to promote his flesh; the other for the spirit, to promote its interests. The sowing is figurative for what has already been stated literally in 5:16: walking by what is spirit; 5:18: being led by what is spirit; 5:25: living and keeping in line by what is spirit; thus the opposite is walking, being led, living, and keeping step with the flesh. Our life here is a sowing of the one kind or of the other.

The thought is the same as that expressed in Rom. 8:12, 13: debtors not to the flesh to live after the flesh and thus to die, but with the spirit (not Spirit) to kill the deeds of the flesh and thus to live (see this passage). The stress is on the two sowers and what their sowing promotes. Neither seed nor soil is mentioned, for no one sows without them. As to the seed, this is plainly implied. He who sows for his flesh will sow the seed his flesh furnishes and certainly not the seed furnished by the spirit; the same is true with regard to the other sower. We need no special statement on this point.

When Paul says, “from this flesh (of his) he will reap corruption,” and, “from this spirit he will reap life eternal,” the articles point back to the very flesh and the spirit for which each sower sows, so that we may translate: “from this flesh—from this spirit.” The one sower does his sowing in order to promote his flesh, to get more and more of this flesh of his, for one always sows in order to get more of the same product. Paul has already said, “That very thing he will, indeed, get.” Yea, in 5:19, etc., he has already listed the works of the flesh, the products which the flesh wants and brings forth. The other sower does his sowing in order to promote the spirit, to get augmentation of this product. He certainly gets it (v. 7), and 5:22, etc., states in detail what the spirit wants and produces. One should not overlook this connection with 5:19–25, for this passage shows the intermediate products of the flesh and of the spirit.

Paul does not go over this ground again, his readers are to remember what he has already said. Here he mentions the two final harvests. What one can grow for the flesh (the works of the flesh, 5:19, etc.) one reaps out of this flesh, from it, this very flesh furnishes the harvest. This is also true with regard to the spirit. Paul does not expand the thought so as to include seed and soil; he keeps what he says compact. The final harvest of the flesh-sower is “corruption.” This has been explained already in 5:21, yet only negatively: he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Here this is stated positively: “he shall reap corruption.” The final harvest of the spirit-sower is the opposite: “he shall reap life eternal,” i. e., shall inherit the kingdom. Thus each reaps what he sows.

Beyond question “corruption” and “life eternal” are extreme opposites. Rom. 8:13 is the parallel: “ye shall die—ye shall live.” “Corruption” matches “the flesh,” but not in a physical way. Yet R., W. P., remarks: “Nature writes in one’s body the penalty of sin as every doctor knows.” True as this is, here Paul states far more. “Flesh” is not the body but our own sin-corrupted nature. Disease invades also the body of the godly person, his body, too, sees corruption in the grave (1 Cor. 15:53). Paul is not speaking of this. Here φθορά has its first meaning, Vernichtung (C.-K. 1200), Untergang (B.-P. 1369 for our passage), ἀπώλεια, eternal death, the opposite of “life eternal.” John uses the latter fourteen times.

The spirit itself is ζωή. It is the spiritual life principle itself; we get it by regeneration. It manifests itself as is indicated in 5:22, 23. Those who are without it are dead in trespasses and sins. This life may be lost, but it is to go on and on, is to pass unscathed through physical death, is to be “eternal,” beyond death. It includes the body which only sleeps in physical death and is raised at last to have its full part in this everlasting life in heaven: “he shall reap life eternal.”

All that Paul says goes beyond the proper use of our earthly wealth, being generous to spiritual instructors, and the like. Sowing for the spirit and reaping from the spirit include all our spiritual activity. The idea that Paul teaches the merit of good works with eternal life as their reward does not appreciate what “the spirit” is and what sowing “for the spirit” means. The kingdom of God is inherited (5:21) and not earned by works or human merit.

Galatians 6:9

9 Sowing for the spirit is hard work, long-continued work, and, although the harvest is eternal blessedness, we may, while we are waiting for it, grow discouraged. Hence the admonition: Moreover, in doing the excellent thing let us not be discouraged, for in proper season we shall reap if we do not relax.

The connective δέ adds this as being something different. It certainly is very necessary. “The excellent or noble thing” = sowing for the spirit and comprises all that 5:22, 23 contains. The neuter is used in the Greek fashion as the equivalent of an abstract noun; it is all one noble unit with which our spiritual activity is concerned.

Paul employs this verb in 2 Cor. 4:1, 16 and uses it in the same sense: “let us not be growing tired, discouraged, faint, or fainthearted.” The verb does not mean, “to give in to evil.” It contains κακός in the sense of “inferior”; the “to be weary” of our versions is quite correct, as is also the “to faint” in 2 Cor. 4:1, 16. Many start well but tire sooner or later, especially when exertion becomes hard.

What is to keep our energy up to the mark, strengthen us ever anew, is the shining harvest which we shall reap in its own season. That season comes to each one as God arranges. The negative participle at the end: “we not relaxing, not being exhausted, not letting down,” once more emphasizes the thought that we should not tire in our blessed task. The implication is a condition: “if we do not relax” (R. 1023).

Participle and subjunctive are present tenses denoting state or condition. To be doing “the (spiritually) excellent thing” is itself an inspiration, but in addition to this Paul points to the coming harvest. When the blessed harvest season arrives, we shall wonder why we ever thought of getting tired and of relaxing; to have waited a hundred times as long will then seem to us no reason at all for thinking of tiring.

Galatians 6:10

10 This brings the concluding admonition which is based on the foregoing: Accordingly then, while we have opportunity, let us work the thing that is good toward all and especially toward the house-members of the faith.

Verse 9 is negative: let us not grow tired, not be exhausted. So we now have the positive: do with energy. The emphasis is on “while we have opportunity” (the correct reading has the indicative and not the subjunctive as in Westcott and Hort). The idea is, however, not a reference to special opportunities which come now and again, “the good” then being some material help extended by us in charity. No; this is an ever-present kairos, “season” or opportunity; ὡς = (B.-D. 455, 2), “now while.” In place of “the excellent thing” whose spiritual excellence is contained in itself we now have “the good thing,” heilbringend (C.-K. 4), spiritually beneficial to others who are also named. This articulated neuter singular is classic and equal to an abstract noun; the article is generic (R. 763), all the good is a unit. In v. 6 we have the plural; it is characteristic of Paul to change from the plural to the singular.

It is true, v. 10 looks back to v. 6, but not in the way so commonly supposed, namely that in v. 6 we dispense material gifts to our teachers and now in v. 10 to all men in general and especially to our fellow believers. Quite otherwise: we are first to make ourselves participants with our teachers in all the spiritually good things they have to offer us. This is to be the source of our enrichment. Then we are to dispense our spiritual wealth to others with all tireless energy so that they may share it with us. This is to be the outflow. It is to go on “while, as long as, we have opportunity,” as long as life lasts and without weariness. Jesus is the example, Paul is another.

We are told by some that moral good (spiritual would be correct) is our universal duty, in which no distinction can be made such as doing this good “especially” to our fellow believers; so, it is argued, Paul must here refer to material good. But dispensing Christian charity, no matter to whom, is ever as much a spiritual act as any other and is to be performed only in the same spiritual way. Dispensing charity especially to our brethren is required no more than doing other spiritual good especially to our brethren. They have first call upon us and our energy. It would be strange indeed if this were not true. Does Paul not call them the οἰκεῖοι of the faith, those who are in the same house with us, with whom we are in closest contact as “house-members”?

All their spiritual needs are seen and felt by us in the most immediate way. They and we are of one divine family or household, we are joined together with them as we are with no others. This is the reason for Paul’s “especially”; it applies to “the good” in every respect.

Paul might have said, “especially toward the brethren”; by saying “house-members” he justifies his special mention of these. In Eph. 2:19 he uses “house-members of God,” those who belong to God’s household, the church. The genitive is possessive, it is like “of the faith.” The latter is thus another instance in which “the faith” (articulated) is objective faith, quae creditur, not subjective, qua creditur. It is interesting to compare ὑμῶντὸἀγαθόν in Rom. 14:16 with τὸἀγαθόν used here and to ask ourselves whether the two have reference to the same thing.

Conclusion

All my glorying is in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Galatians 6:11

11 The final paragraph is no longer admonitory but thetical and summary and ends with a prayerful wish. It is marked as the conclusion by the first sentence. See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!

This simple sentence has caused much discussion. Paul is not exclaiming because of the size of his epistle. Yet Luther and others translate, “with how many words.” The dative means “with how large letters.” Others, like R. 846, regard the aorist as epistolary: Paul places himself at the time when his letter is read in Galatia, and his writing is then in the past. These assume that this letter was dictated, that, as in other dictated letters, Paul wrote only the concluding verses with his own hand, and that in this letter he wrote these last words in large, bold script. But Paul never uses the aorist ἔγραψα to designate the writing of only a few concluding words. He uses the aorist “I wrote” when he refers to an earlier letter, or to an entire letter that is reaching its close, or to a discussion he has just finished (1 Cor. 9:15).

He uses “I write” to indicate a statement just written, something he continues to write, even a letter that is almost finished. From this we conclude that Paul is here referring to this entire epistle and says that all of it came from his own hand, that none of it was dictated, that all of it was written in large script.

This raises two questions: “Why did Paul write with his own hand instead of dictating? Why was the script notably large?” The natural answers are: “Because no amanuensis was at hand; because Paul’s hand had been badly hurt in one or the other of the severe beatings he had received when he was flayed by the lictors at Philippi or when he was stoned and left as dead at Lystra.” The latter, namely a badly damaged hand, may be the reason that Paul dictated his other letters.

Writing at Corinth shortly after starting his work there, the delegation from Galatia found Paul alone, without a scribe, with nobody to send greetings to the Galatians. Thus Paul wrote this epistle with his own hand. The supposition that he did it in order the more to show his personal interest in the Galatians could be entertained only if Paul had had a scribe at hand and yet did not use him. Even then we think he would have used him.

The large script has been referred to as indicating eye trouble, this together with his practice of dictating, 4:15 is also introduced. Between this supposition and the one that Paul’s right hand had been hurt we prefer the latter. The damage to his hand may well have been one of the stigmata to which he refers in v. 17. At least, we deem this the most tenable idea that has been offered on the subject.

Galatians 6:12

12 The issue in Galatia centered on circumcision in a special way (5:2, etc.); hence Paul reverts to this in his conclusion. As many as want to make a fair show in the flesh, these (are the ones who) are trying to compel you to have yourselves circumcised in order that they may not be persecuted because of the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised themselves observe what is law, but they want you to have yourselves circumcised in order that they may get to boast for themselves in your very flesh.

Paul exposes the Judaizers, these circumcisers, as to their base motive. They are not at all concerned about “spirit” but only about “flesh” (v. 8). In this domain they want to make a fair showing. This verb has finally been found in one of the papyri. This is a sample of what may occur in the case of other words that have hitherto been found only in the New Testament. B.-P. 506: “they want to play a role before men,” which gives the sense but not the exact equivalent of the word. The German gleissen is better. They were good Jesuits.

These, Paul says, men of this type, are the ones who “are trying to compel you (conative present, B.-D. 319; R. 880) to have yourselves circumcised (permissive passive) only in order that they may not be persecuted because of the cross of Christ” (dative of cause, B.-D. 196; R. 532.) They want to make a fine showing with you Galatians by inducing all of you to get circumcised so that the Jews, who are otherwise so hostile to Christianity, may not persecute them, i. e., the Judaizers, although they confess the crucified Christ. The aim of the Judaizers is to win so much merit with the Jews that these will not attack them as they constantly attack Paul, having nearly killed him at Lystra.

Pause and note that, if Paul had yielded on the point of the necessity of circumcision, he, too, could have escaped this persecution, the instigators of which were uniformly Jews. It was his stand on circumcision that fired the dynamite of Jewish hate. See what it did to Paul in Acts 21:18, 19; he was nearly killed in the Temple on the suspicion of having brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the sacred precincts. What a temptation for Paul to advocate circumcision in order to curry favor with the Jews! Was circumcision not a matter that was merely ceremonial? Today many would compromise on a thing like that.

The Judaizers also accepted Jesus and the cross; all they did was to soften the offensiveness of the cross to the Jews. Was that not wise? If many of our day had been in their place they would have agreed to this. Do they not today still make the cross palatable by removing its offense?

Galatians 6:13

13 With “for” Paul explains how the Judaizers make only a fair showing in the flesh: although they demanded circumcision they themselves are not observing what is law. Note the absence of the article. We may also regard this present tense as conative: “do not attempt to observe law.” Some think that the Judaizers failed to keep the moral parts of the law. But the unmodified word “law” does not allow such a restriction. It includes both the circumcision of the Judaizers and their demand upon the Galatians to be circumcised. For it is certainly not observing law in any true sense of the word to advocate circumcision only in order to escape Jewish persecution.

To comply with the outward form of law with such a motive is anything but true compliance. Abraham did not do so when he accepted circumcision as a seal of God’s covenant. What the Judaizers did with circumcision they did with law in general. Do the Galatians want to listen to and to follow such men?

The readings vary between the less well-attested perfect participle: “they that have been circumcised,” and the present participle which is more adequately attested and which appears to be more difficult since it seems to mean, “those being circumcised” or, “those letting themselves be circumcised,” which could then not refer to the Judaizers but only to Gentiles who allowed themselves to be persuaded to circumcision while here the former are undoubtedly referred to. Zahn regards the present as being timeless, as stating the custom which these people advocated, that of being circumcised. Paul wants to say more than that the Judaizers were once circumcised and then, of course, remained so (perfect participle). Paul and all Christian Jews were such men. These Judaizers were men who ever advocate being circumcised, Beschneidungsleute as they have been called, or rather Leute des Beschnittenwerdens. The term is intended to be derogatory.

So little are they concerned about actual observance of law that their purpose in having you Galatians subject yourselves to circumcision is only “that they may get to boast in their own interest (middle voice) in your flesh.” That is why they want you circumcised so as to be able to point to your flesh, the amputation of your foreskin as their great accomplishment in order to win vast credit among the Jews. The possessive pronoun is used for the sake of emphasis; a simple genitive ὑμῶν would be without emphasis. “Your own” flesh like their own and like the Jews’ own—to achieve that boast (aorist) in their own interest (middle) is their great purpose. This positive ἵνα supplements the negative one used in v. 12. These are the selfish, despicable Judaizers.

Galatians 6:14

14 Throughout v. 12, 13 we have a description of men who are the direct opposite of Paul. This is made evident by the fervent wish: But for me on my part let it never get to be (that I) try to boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by means of which for me the world has been crucified, and I for the world!

The dative of relation is placed forward for the sake of strong emphasis and is thus set into opposition with all men such as have just been described. Paul uses this aorist optative of wish often, most frequently with only the negative particle: “Let it not be!” which in our versions is rendered, “God forbid!” The aorist is effective and has the infinitive as its subject, which is either a conative present: “that I try to boast,” or durative in general: “that I go boasting” save in one thing only, namely in the cross, etc. The Judaizers wanted to escape the persecution that was connected with the cross by making their boast to the Jews that they were getting the Gentile Christians to submit to circumcision. Verse 15 shows that Paul has this in mind in his prayerful wish that the cross may ever be his one and only boast. Let what persecution will come, no other boast shall be his. The Judaizers are sincere only regarding themselves and not regarding the cross; Paul is the opposite.

His wish is made regarding himself but in such a way that every Galatian, every true Christian will repeat it with Paul. He adds the full, solemn genitive: in the cross “of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The plural “our” includes all the Galatians and thus says much more than “my” would imply. He is “our Lord” in the full soteriological sense of gracious Lord who purchased and won us as his own, to whom we belong, under whom we live happy to be his and to serve him alone, whose name is “Jesus” or Savior, whose title is “Christ,” which indicates his mighty office: the Messiah anointed of God.

“The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” as Paul’s one boast and glory is most comprehensive. We see this when he makes it exclude Judaistic circumcision and thus all legalism. When we today adopt Paul’s great wish for ourselves we forget those old Judaizers. They have long ago faded from the life of the Christian Church. Oppositions to the cross bearing other names, using other legalistic tenets, dissolvents of newer kinds, have replaced the Judaizers. Against all of them we vow allegiance to the cross with Paul’s words. Whatever side of the cross, whatever doctrine involved in the cross are attacked today, the cross, the whole cross and nothing but the cross is our one treasure.

Our poets have sung its praises in noblest strains, our congregations ring with these exalted strains, symbolic crosses decorate our altars, our pulpits, our spires, and our gravestones. It is the cross of “the blood theology,” the cross on which the Son of God died for our advantage, the cross of expiation, substitution, ransom, and atonement, the cross which brought the resurrection of the crucified body and its exaltation at God’s right hand of majesty and power and the future resurrection and exaltation of our mortal bodies. God help us ever to see it in the fulness with which it filled the eyes and the gospel of Paul!

The relative is to be connected with “the cross,” on which also the genitive depends, even as the Lord cannot be dissociated from the cross which made him “our Lord.” By means of this cross, Paul says, “to me the world has been crucified, and I to the world.” Both pronouns are emphatic, both are in opposition to the Judaizers, both are to be uttered by every Galatian as they are by Paul. “The world” needs no article in the Greek as is the case with regard to other nouns that designate objects only one of which exists. “The world” as here used is all that among men is in opposition to God, to Christ, and to his cross (C.-K. 622), men who are themselves filled with this opposition or the opposition which fills them. The perfect tense “has been crucified” has its present connotation: once crucified and thus remaining so.

There is a causal sense in the double relative clause: Paul glories in the cross because by means of it a crucifixion has taken place for him and in him. When he came to faith in the cross, then the world was crucified and remained so for him, and he himself was crucified for the world and remains so. Both datives may be called ethical. The verb is figurative and not mystical. Crucifixion means death and more than death, a death of shame and abomination by which the dead one is cast out as one execrated. Here a double crucifixion, a double death of execration took place: in the one the world was nailed to the cross as far as Paul was concerned, in the other Paul was nailed to the cross as far as the world was concerned.

Each was forever done with the other. This double thing was done entirely “by means of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So brief the expression, yet so tremendous. Perfection in wording to attain concentrated penetration of thought. The effect of the cross for and in the believer cannot be stated in a more adequate way. Even the two datives and the two nominatives are placed chiastically, and one verb is enough. Yet the two pronouns are placed first, for the change takes place entirely in Paul. The world is the same old wicked world of which Paul was once a part.

Then the cross came into his heart and changed him completely. It was not he who then crucified the world in execration. This was done for him in his heart. So, too, it was the world which was crucified for him; this was done for him by another, again done in his heart. The passive leaves unsaid who did both. It was not the cross, for this was the great means.

Was it not “our Lord Jesus Christ” who entered Paul’s heart with his cross?

Galatians 6:15

15 The cross has placed a great gulf between Paul and the world. It has liberated him from the wicked world. This liberation is the subject of the whole epistle. When Paul writes “world” he broadens to the greatest extent. So with “for” he now explains how the Judaizers are involved. For neither circumcision is anything, nor foreskin, but a new creation.

This recalls 5:6, and the substance is the same. The three abstract terms are often regarded as pure abstracts, yet the observation is correct that here, as is the case quite often, they are used as marking three concretes: all those who are circumcised—all those who have foreskin—all those who have been made new creatures by regeneration and faith in the cross. The two former are nothing at all, but the latter are something, the latter alone. Yet “neither—nor” is not parallel but diverse. For those who have been circumcised considered their circumcision as being something, yea, the great decisive advantage. Those with foreskin, of course, never boasted thus about their foreskin.

The Judaizers and the Jews considered the uncircumcised as nothing. Thus Paul’s meaning is: circumcision is nothing of advantage—foreskin is nothing of disadvantage; the one no gain—the other no loss. But to be a new creation is everthing.

This statement puts the whole matter into succinct and final form. It expounds the main clause of v. 14, Paul’s glorying in the cross, and not merely the relative clause regarding what the cross effects. On the new creation compare 2 Cor. 5:17.

Galatians 6:16

16 And as many as shall keep in line with this canon, peace on them and mercy, even on the Israel of God! Verse 15 states the objective canon; “and” in v. 16 adds the subjective use of this canon. “As many as” includes all of them whether living in Galatia or elsewhere. see 5:25 on the verb. From κανών we have our “canon” which eventually came to be applied to the Scriptures. The word refers to a measuring rod by which we take measure of something to verify whether it is of proper size or length. So we measure our doctrine and our life by the Scriptures, for these alone are the exactest measuring rod we possess. Paul speaks of those who will make their faith and their life tally with the blessed principle he has just stated.

On them “peace” shall rest, the peace of God, the condition in which all is well with them. see 1:3. We generally have “grace and peace,” peace being named second as the result of having grace. We several times also have “mercy and peace” in the same manner. Paul reverses the order and places the phrase between the words, which leads some to think that he refers to “peace” in this life and “mercy” at the time of the final judgment. While one may mention the cause first (mercy) and the effect second (peace), it is also proper to name the effect before its cause. We so understand the order used here. We shall certainly enjoy mercy also in this life. To point to 2 Tim. 1:18 is of no help since it does not mention peace; neither do Matt. 5:7; James 2:13; Jude 21.

We need not be puzzled about καί and “the Israel of God.” The future tense “shall keep in line” confines us to the future which is now beginning, and “as many as” omits none who could be added to this number. Is it possible to restrict “as many as” to the Galatians and then to add to them “the Israel of God” (believing Jews)? What about the other churches with their believing Gentiles? Gentiles and Jews in all the churches are together conceived as those who will keep in line with the canon.

This καί signifies “even” or “namely.” “As many as will keep in line with the rule” constitute “the Israel of God.” The objection that Paul should then say, “upon the whole Israel of God,” is answered by the preceding future tense. The whole or all the Israel would include all the Old Testament saints; but Paul is not speaking of these. Paul has a special, telling reason for adding this explicative apposition. It is a last blow at the Judaizers, his final triumph over them and their contention. As many as shall keep in line with this rule, they and they alone constitute “the Israel of God” from henceforth, all Judaizers to the contrary notwithstanding.

Galatians 6:17

17 Paul has reached the end of his epistle. Henceforth let no one go on furnishing me troubles, for I on my part carry in my body the scarmarks of Jesus. Paul is done with this trouble in Galatia. He considers the issue ended. So little does he expect any further danger from it that he will have no one extract further troubles from it for him. Paul was justified in this view. The Galatians must have taken a similar attitude, for we hear of no more Judaistic trouble for them or for Paul from them.

With “for” he assigns as the reason for thus calling the troubles from this quarter ended the fact that he is carrying in his body the scars that were inflicted by the Jews who hated him for successfully promulgating the great canon just stated in v. 15. He calls them the stigmata of Jesus, the marks the Jews inflicted on the body of Jesus. These scarmarks show the stand he has ever taken; they show to what extent he has already suffered for this canon. Let the Galatians think of these scars in Paul’s body and then they will stand as firmly as he does.

It has been objected that the man who, as it were, was made for troubles and labor could not say he wanted no more of them. But this word is addressed to the Galatians in connection with one specific instance of trouble, and it is beside the mark to generalize. Κόποι enough awaited him, even further scars; but this Galatian matter he considered at an end. Let no one in Galatia prolong it.

This objection has led to a modification of Paul’s meaning. The opinion of Marcion is revived that τοῦλοιποῦ (supply χρόνου) is not adverbial: fortan (B.-D. 186, 2 and 160), but a partitive genitive: let no one “of the rest” of the Israel furnish me trouble, i. e., none of the Judaizers. This view is supported by the doubt as to whether Paul ever uses this genitive adverbially as do the classics; in Eph. 6:10 it is eliminated in preference to the other variant. But Marcion himself, as it seems, cancelled the reference to “the Israel of God” from v. 16, which eliminates this idea and any modern modification of it.

A good deal has been said regarding the stigmata and regarding what Paul means by referring to them. That they were the scars remaining from the scourgings, from the one stoning (2 Cor. 11:25; Acts 14:19), and from other blows, is generally admitted. What is debated is whether Paul borrows the expression from paganism. Runaway and misbehaved slaves and criminals were branded on the brow or the hand; but this does not fit Paul although some think that by the mention of these stigmata Paul intends to designate himself a slave. M.-M. 590 adds: “Nor is there any evidence that the practice of soldiers tattooing themselves with their commanders’ names, which others (i. e., commentators) prefer, was at all general.” Devotees of a goddess or of a temple sometimes bore a brand; but this, too, seems out of place when speaking of Paul. The whole matter of branding and of tattooing as found in the pagan world is inapplicable to Paul.

The latest evidence is a papyrus found by Deissmann. It is thought to have a bearing on our passage because the find contains the words βαστάζειν and κόπουςπαρέχειν: carrying an amulet of the god Osiris in a godly act is to ward off getting trouble from any adversary. Paul’s scars are made equivalent to the amulet. Deissmann lets Paul speak to the Galatians as to his “naughty little children,” “smiling, with uplifted finger telling them: ‘do be sensible; you cannot make me any trouble, for I am protected by a charm’” (bin ja gefeit), C.-K. 1021. Then Paul would end his great epistle in a jocular way! Zahn accepts this and excuses the pagan language!

Paul writes, “the stigmata of Jesus,” the Jesus who suffered on the cross. There are no pagan implications of any kind; this is only a plain historical reference. Luke 24:39; John 20:25, 27. The scars on Paul’s body belonged to Jesus, were like the wounds he himself suffered, for Paul’s scars were truly suffered because of Christ. Compare 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Col. 1:24. A far later age invented “stigmata of Jesus,” a reproduction of the marks of the five wounds in the hands, the feet, and the side of Jesus. These “stigmata” are either violent pains in these parts of the body or marks that turn red and, in some cases, bleed. All of these peculiar phenomena are pathological and have nothing to do with Paul’s scars.

Galatians 6:18

18 The most probable reason as to why no greetings are added is noted in v. 11. Paul closes with a benediction. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ with your spirit, brethren. Amen. His grace is to pardon and to bless (see 1:3). Paul writes the full title and name as he did in v. 14.

But here he does not write, “with you,” but “with your spirit,” as he does in Phil. 4:23, and Philemon 25; the spirit is to triumph over the flesh. Note that the spirit has been mentioned repeatedly in 5:16, 18, 22, 25; 6:8. A heartfelt address “brethren” is placed at the end. It is placed at the end of a sentence in 5:13; 5:26; and nearly at the end in 4:12. Paul never uses this word without a due reason, see 1:11. “Amen” seals the closing wish as it does the opening greeting in 1:5. Paul parts from the Galatians as being his brethren.

They remained that by the grace of the Lord.

Soli Deo Gloria

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

R A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.