Reaping in Galatians 6:9

The context suggests that reaping in Galatians 6:9 refers to salvation. θερίζω is the lemma. This seems to be a finite verb in my opinion. However, in a commentary by John Macarthur that I read, he argued that "eternal life" in verse 8 refers to the character of eternal life, but he made no more arguments or cited anything. Is there any evidence to back this claim, or does the reaping in verse 9 refer to salvation?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Paul

Assuming your description of his perspective is accurate (it certainly sounds like him), MacArthur is seeking to avoid the uncomfortable condition of having his doctrine contradicted by Scripture, thus his need to shave the meaning of "eternal life". He's trying to avoid any sense of having to please YHWH with his behavior in the like manner as Yeishuua` did, even though 1 Jn. 3:7 says the way we are recognized as righteous by 'Elohhiym is in the exact same way that He (Yeishuua`) was so recognized...by practicing righteousness, i.e. doing His will. Salvation is only assigned to those whom YHWH recognizes as, and declares, righteous, so there is an emphatic Hebraic parallelism between the two concepts: [righteousness = salvation]. As 1 Jn. 3:7 emphasizes, there will be (and now is) a particular emphasis afoot intent on deceiving His people regarding this point. MacArthur, one of those who rejects John's words, believes and teaches something altogether different. Evidence for his claim? None that I know of...especially since I don't comprehend what sense there is in separating "eternal life" from "the character of eternal life". Can you imagine him attempting to separate "a person" from "the character of a person" with a straight face?

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259860#Comment_1259860

Assuming your description of his perspective is accurate (it certainly sounds like him), MacArthur is seeking to avoid the uncomfortable condition of having his doctrine contradicted by Scripture, thus his need to shave the meaning of "eternal life". He's trying to avoid any sense of having to please YHWH with his behavior in the like manner as Yeishuua` did, even though 1 Jn. 3:7 says the way we are recognized as righteous by 'Elohhiym is in the exact same way that He (Yeishuua`) was so recognized...by practicing righteousness, i.e. doing His will. Salvation is only assigned to those whom YHWH recognizes as, and declares, righteous, so there is an emphatic Hebraic parallelism between the two concepts: [righteousness = salvation]. As 1 Jn. 3:7 emphasizes, there will be (and now is) a particular emphasis afoot intent on deceiving His people regarding this point. MacArthur, one of those who rejects John's words, believes and teaches something altogether different. Evidence for his claim? None that I know of...especially since I don't comprehend what sense there is in separating "eternal life" from "the character of eternal life". Can you imagine him attempting to separate "a person" from "the character of a person" with a straight face?

Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc.
Please do not discuss or debate biblical, theological, or other controversial topics. Use one of the many web forums intended for these kinds of discussions.

Guess we don't need to worry about the forum guidelines anymore. I've noticed in recent weeks that certain posters, some of whom have MANY forum posts (and so certainly know better), have disregarded the guidelines.

Would a moderator who DOESN'T regularly violate the guidelines themselves speak to this please?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259860#Comment_1259860

David, thanks for your reply. I was not sure where to go and did not have many commentaries on this passage so I went to MacArthur.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259884#Comment_1259884

I've noticed in recent weeks that certain posters, some of whom have MANY forum posts (and so certainly know better), have disregarded the guidelines.

Are you referring to responses to limited number of original posters? If so, it is a tradition going back at least to an Anabaptist stroke victim whose daughter asked us to make allowances. If you are referring to the less than a handful of forum participants who have been called out many times for their posts, I simply skip their posts and don't know if they have been adding off topic posts. If you are referring to my lack of control when people make flagrantly inaccurate assumptions or specifically question me, mea culpa ... I am easily pulled into a discussion. It is my family's normal dinner/living room conversation and I forget to others it is controversial.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259948#Comment_1259948

I've noticed in recent weeks that certain posters, some of whom have MANY forum posts (and so certainly know better), have disregarded the guidelines.

Are you referring to responses to limited number of original posters? If so, it is a tradition going back at least to an Anabaptist stroke victim whose daughter asked us to make allowances. If you are referring to the less than a handful of forum participants who have been called out many times for their posts, I simply skip their posts and don't know if they have been adding off topic posts. If you are referring to my lack of control when people make flagrantly inaccurate assumptions or specifically question me, mea culpa ... I am easily pulled into a discussion. It is my family's normal dinner/living room conversation and I forget to others it is controversial.

flagrantly inaccurate assumptions

You're assuming the rightness of your own position and the inaccuracy of the other view.

Mea culpa! I've been corrected more than once for offering a far less intense opinion than was offered here, and I have tried to "hold my tongue" (well, fingers) since. The guidelines are not a sin issue, but they are a social boundary that forum users are supposed to honor. If, as you say, you are easily pulled into a discussion, that's fine. But the guidelines should not be used to permit one person to go off-topic and then prevent others from engaging them accordingly.

So what if we say this: responses to the Original Post should stay within the boundaries set by the post. Ask a question about how to search for Hebrew verbs, and everyone answers accordingly. Ask a question about how to interpret Psalm 23, and let users answer accordingly.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259973#Comment_1259973

You're assuming the rightness of your own position and the inaccuracy of the other view.

You misunderstood what I meant - I was talking about established facts not assumptions predicated on beliefs. For example, if someone were to say the original scriptures were written in Mayan, I would feel obligated to correct them. If they were to say the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, I would treat it as an alternative opinion with which I do not agree but would not "correct". This most frequently occurs when people step outside their actual knowledge to describe others' theologies and practices.

So what if we say this: responses to the Original Post should stay within the boundaries set by the post. Ask a question about how to search for Hebrew verbs, and everyone answers accordingly. Ask a question about how to interpret Psalm 23, and let users answer accordingly.

I'd agree with allowance for follow-up questions also shaping the conversation's flow. But the interpretation questions should generally be presented in the form of a request for resources not a request for THE interpretation.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1259884#Comment_1259884

Guess we don't need to worry about the forum guidelines anymore. I've noticed in recent weeks that certain posters, some of whom have MANY forum posts (and so certainly know better), have disregarded the guidelines.

Would a moderator who DOESN'T regularly violate the guidelines themselves speak to this please?

I encourage you to continue to alert posters about the Forum Guidelines. I'm not comfortable with the OP's presentation in this thread nor with the immediate response that assumed something about MacArthur and proceeded to present their opinion.

On Galations 6:8 "....everlasting life. This expression describes not only a life that endures forever but, primarily, the highest quality of living that one can experience (cf. Ps. 51:12; John 10:10; Eph. 1:3, 18)". MacArthur, J., Jr., ed. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1799). Word Pub.

I don't know it was the Study Bible, but the OP should have properly cited MacArthur and only asked something like "is there other evidence to support this comment?".

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260151#Comment_1260151

the OP should have properly cited MacArthur and only asked something like "is there other evidence to support this comment?".

No offense, but I don't think that's going to be realistic (other thread discussions; enough said). And yes, the follow-up needed paragraph breaks (being kind).

But in a forum like this, the challenge, is a challenge.

- Poster A posits stupid-idea from crazy-commentary (not referring to this thread, just in general). Asks for a great resource!

- Logosian-B bites his typing-fingers and waits.

- Logosian-C swallows a bit of Pepto-Bismol and offers a suggested resource.

But hanging in the wings, is the issue of not an 'alternative view', but rather a better view. Or 'you can't be serious!'.

It's hard for the forum guidelines to overcome that problem.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260152#Comment_1260152

But in a forum like this, the challenge, is a challenge.

The Guidelines ask us to resist "challenge" type questions i.e.

not to discuss or debate theological, biblical or controversial topics
and focus on Logos Bible Software instead.

So if Poster A had actually done as you suggested we would not be here!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260152#Comment_1260152

Or using another thread as an example:

OP: requests resources on a particular topic from a particular perspective

First few responses (not in order)

answers the question asked - 2
provides argument against topic - 7
answer for using search, ignoring the particular perspective - 2
answers the question but all from outside the particular perspective requested - 1
off-topic related sidebar - 3
OP thanks those contributing - 1
requests to keep the thread focused on OP's request - 2

No, that is not the entire thread. But it illustrates a basic problem. The OP is unlikely to hold the position he wanted resources for. He does not request information on the topic in general but only on a very specific position on the topic ... yet people feel obligated to show the position to be wrong. To which I say "why?" ... but then again, my views are so far from those of some forum regulars, I'd have to spend 24 hours a day telling them they are asking for false information. Instead, I reach for another sip or tea or coffee.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260156#Comment_1260156

I am one that has gotten "off track" several times and have been chastised for it by some on this forum who have many posts. And yet, I see them doing the things they chastised me for doing.

That is causing confusion as I see it. I have and am trying to follow the forum guidelines. But the liberties some use... makes it hard not to "follow suit". Some of "those discussions" that have nothing to do with Logos software... just get my fingers to wiggling. And there seems to be a lot of those type of discussions. And I cave in, type something, and then get chastised again, and then watch the person that chastised me, do the same thing as I did....

But maybe what I don't understand it... that some people have special privileges that I don't have?????

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260171#Comment_1260171

I am one that has gotten "off track" several times and have been chastised for it by some on this forum who have many posts. And yet, I see them doing the things they chastised me for doing.

On a logical day, I tell myself to mind the guidelines. Also, I tell myself that I know little compared to some forumites.

I know vouchsafing my opinion will not change others' opinions one iota...... My brother-in-law is a pastor. Our Arminian/Reformed discussions, both in-person and via e-mails, on how God saves, avail nothing much beyond information sampling. I believe ABC. No, [he] believes CDE......I note that more shade is cast on each other when we do this via e-mail, and less aspersion is laid down in person. We do not discuss this any more.

So, I try to merely read the threads, then escape.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260171#Comment_1260171

But maybe what I don't understand it... that some people have special privileges that I don't have?????

Let's check out the good apostle Paul. Behavior is righteousness (not theologizing; just quoting). But only if others' behavior is righteousness (Epistle Laodicea 2:3). Else not righteousness is ok (verse 4b). Principle: what others do is the guide.

Right? Smiling.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260193#Comment_1260193

But maybe what I don't understand it... that some people have special privileges that I don't have?????

Let's check out the good apostle Paul. Behavior is righteousness (not theologizing; just quoting). But only if others' behavior is righteousness (Epistle Laodicea 2:3). Else not righteousness is ok (verse 4b). Principle: what others do is the guide.

Right? Smiling.

lol. Exactly...

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260171#Comment_1260171

But maybe what I don't understand it... that some people have special privileges that I don't have?????

These are my personal informal guidelines for my own posts:I

Is the post stating my personal beliefs? DON'T post unless I was specifically asked for the information.
Does the post imply my judgment on a theological, political, or interpretative position. DON'T post.
Is the OP a person known to respond negatively to me and/or my posts or known to frequently be abusive in the forums. DON'T post but leave it for others. Exception: if it is in an area that few regular forumites know the answer to post but watch my wording very carefully.
Does the post actually answer the OP's question? Post.
Does the post tangentially answer the OP's question? If so, how narrowly or broadly did the OP ask the question? If narrowly, Don't post.
Is the post designed to help others reading the thread rather than/in addition to the OP? Judgment call re:posting
Is the post the first to go off-topic? DON'T post with some exceptions for humor.
Is the post in response to an off-topic post? Judgment call re:posting Some off-topic posts are natural follow-ups or friendly banter so Post; others are not and are judgment calls.

In following the forum fairly closely, I find that it is a very limited number of forumites who post items that violate my personal guidelines 1, 2, and 7 but they do so frequently. My personal most common failing is 8.

scooter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1260212#Comment_1260212

These are my personal informal guidelines for my own posts

Do you have them printed out for you perusal? Or, you may have a sixth sense when something you write needs a second look, so mentally take a tally?

DON'T post with some exceptions for humor

Humour is very tricky. Our posts have many readers. There is going to be somebody who does not find it funny, or is insulted.

Justin Gatlin

The context suggests that reaping in Galatians 6:9 refers to salvation. θερίζω is the lemma ... Is there any evidence to back this claim, or does the reaping in verse 9 refer to salvation?

I am not really sure that I follow your reading of MacArthur, who seems to me only to suggest that eternal life begins now, not only at the judgment. He seems to see damnation as the culmination of a life of descending sin and final salvation as the culmination of a life of righteousness (where the character of eternal life begins now):

[quote]

corruption (v. 8)—from the Greek word for degeneration, as in decaying food; sin always corrupts and, when left unchecked, always makes a person progressively worse in character (see Romans 6:23)

sows to the Spirit (v. 8)—to walk by the Holy Spirit

everlasting life (v. 8)—This expression describes not only a life that endures forever but, primarily, the highest quality of living that one can experience (see Ephesians 1:3, 18).

John MacArthur, Galatians: The Wonderous Grace of God, MacArthur Bible Studies (Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group, 2000), 118.

Nevertheless, focusing on your question about the meaning of "reap," I would take these steps:
1.) Right click "reap" and do a Bible Word Study on the lemma.

2.) Scroll down to "lemma in passage" and select Galatians.
3.) Skim the references to find ones that address your question.
4.) Use their cross references to supplement the incomplete lemma in passage tagging.

For example, the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary matches your position, but the footnotes cite Longnecker and Martyn who disagree:

[quote]

As in 6:7–8 Paul reminds the Galatians of the eschatological reward. At the right time, a time known only to God and not disclosed to the Galatians or anyone else, those who have given generously will reap a reward. “Time” (καιρός) refers here to the final judgment (cf. 1 Cor 4:5),17 as the future “will reap” (θερίσομεν) confirms, for the verb “reap” also points to the final judgment 6:7–8.18 The reward is reserved for those who do not become disheartened, and hence Paul exhorts the Galatians to continue to march in step with the Spirit by showing beneficience to others.

17 So Betz, Galatians, 309. He rightly sees that Paul warns them against “destroying salvation” (310) and proceeds to say, “Therefore, maintaining that freedom is the condition for reaching the fulfillment of salvation in the hereafter” (310). Betz emphasizes that this new life is different from the works of the law because it is the result of the Spirit’s work. The believer must “not let himself get bored with and tired of the ‘good’ ” (310).

18 Contra Longenecker, Galatians, 282, and Martyn, who relates it to the gift of the Spirit (Galatians, 554).

Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 370.

Here is Longnecker:

[quote]

The verb θερίζω (“reap,” “harvest”) corresponds to the agricultural imagery of vv 7b–8 (cf. also the image of “fruit,” καρπός, in the caption “the fruit of the Spirit” at 5:22). Its appearance here in the future tense (θερίσομεν) is a promise for the future, but again without any specification as to whether that time is to be a this-worldly existential future or an other-worldly eschatological future, or both. Interpreters have easily latched on to one or the other of these understandings depending on their own theological proclivities. But Paul (as well as the other NT writers) is not really interested in questions of timing; rather, his attention focuses on the certainty of God’s promises and the inevitability of what will occur when certain spiritual processes are in place.

Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 282.

There are lots of commentaries with lots of different nuances that may be helpful for this direction.
If you are really more interested in the character of "eternal life," the Exegetical Summary series provides some help here (but little on reap):
[quote]

QUESTION—What is meant by ζωὴν αἰώνιον ‘eternal life’?
It is the resurrection life of Christ that was made available to believers by the Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead [NIGTC]. It is not merely life that lasts eternally. It is God’s very own life, the life of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that God graciously gave to the children of God through faith in Jesus Christ [NAC]. The emphasis is on the positive qualities that go with a life which is lived in the Spirit [TH].

NIGTC Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1982.

NAC George, Timothy. Galatians. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

TH Arichea, Daniel C., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. New York: United Bible Societies, 1976.

Robert Stutzman, An Exegetical Summary of Galatians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 247.