The following is part of a group conversation on Facebook. It's much too long for a post there, so I'm posting a link to this on the group page, so that those involved can read it if they so desire. Replies ought to be made in the group conversation over there.
Okay, here's my answer. This is gonna have some serious length. You're certainly welcome to disagree.
I do not write this in any spirit of arrogance or even 100% certainty, or with any sense that I am a greater biblical scholar or interpreter than anyone who has responded so far. This will be addressed to those who have replied to my query thus far, and I may well be entirely wrong, as I may be with any scripture that is less than perfectly clear in the same way to everyone who reads it. This is simply the place to where I have come.
Each of you agreed on what the passage means, and what you have said about it is exactly what I have understood to be true and have taught for 40+ years. I was taught it by another, whom I had no reason to not trust to be correct, and I took that and ran with it, never giving it another critical thought, and never doing any further research about it.
I came by this kind of accidentally, while prepping to preach on Gal. 6:1-10 tomorrow, not expecting to find that I might need to rethink my approach to verse 1. I've come to think that we're probably wrong about it in at least a couple of ways which work so closely together that they're difficult to separate. They are: 1) the nature of being "caught"; and, 2) the nature of the sin itself.
We have taught that the use of the word "caught" means either that the sinning person is trapped by a particular sin from which he needs to be set free; or, that the sinner has been caught or found out or discovered by a fellow believer who should try to help that person become free from that sin. And we have taught that the nature of the sin itself is that it is consistently repeated, with either a sense of despair at being completely defeated by it or a sense of surrender, something that the sinner has settled into, against which he may not even try to fight anymore or has come to accept as normal for him. I have begun this week to think that both of those understandings are incorrect.
There were three steps I took into this new understanding. They were each prompted by reading a large number of commentary and word meaning & usage references about the passage, from writers both new and old, somewhere around two dozen of them. They agree almost entirely on both the details and the larger contextual approach. When that happens, I find it helpful to pay attention. I won't try to cite all of them here, but I'll give representative examples.
1st step: What does "caught" mean in this context?
(Donald Campbell) "The thought is that of someone running from sin but sin, being faster, overtakes and catches him."
(Richard DeHaan) "Notice that this brother was
“overtaken” in a fault. This is quite a different thing than OVERTAKING a sin.
Some people go looking for sin, and go out of their way to find it. But this is
not the case in our Scripture. This brother was “overtaken,” implying that he
was trying to get away from it, trying to avoid it, but because of weakness,
failure of prayer, or failure to look to the Lord for victory, was overtaken.
It was not deliberate sinning, but being “overcome” in a moment of weakness."
(BDAG) "To do something that involves some element of
temporal priority (do something before the usual time, anticipate something -
"begin the growth beforehand in favorable weather") "She has
anointed my body beforehand" (Mk 14:8). To take, get of a meal (of the
taking of food in the temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus), in eating, "for in your eating each one
takes his own supper first" (1 Cor 11:21). To be overtaken or surprised
here in Gal 6:1. In the present context means to overtake by surprise, to
overpower before one can escape."
2nd step: What is the nature of the sin?
(a summary of concordance and word study resources) Trespass (3900) (paraptoma from para = aside + pipto = fall) is a falling aside or beside, a crossing of the line, to stumble on something (so as to loose footing) and figuratively describes a "false step", a slip or lapse rather than a presumptuous willful sin.
(Ralph Earle) "Some scholars have held that the
reference here speaks of a Christian being surprised in his sin by some fellow
Christian who caught him in the act. But it seems much more natural to hold
that it refers to the believer being him-self overtaken by sin, perhaps to his
own surprise. That is, it suggests the deceitfulness of sin in causing us to
stumble before we realize fully the danger we are in....Though it is one of the
many Greek words for sin in the NT, it suggests the less serious type of sin,
that which is not deliberate or premeditated....But the word in this context
seems to carry a somewhat stronger connotation. It refers to a lapse in
Christian experience which requires a restoration. The unfortunate one,
however, has been overtaken or seized suddenly and unexpectedly. That often
happens, especially to the new convert."
(Precept Austin) "In this passage, paraptoma conveys
the idea that the one caught does not commit premeditated sin but instead fails
to be on guard and/or flirts with a temptation he thinks he can withstand.
Looked at another way, in context of Paul's preceding instruction that we need
to depend on the Spirit to live the Christian life, this individual attempts to
live his/her life in their own power and fails, producing a deed of the flesh
instead of bearing the fruit of the Spirit."
3rd step: What is the overall context of the letter to the Galatians?
The letter to the Galatians centers on whether one is saved by faith in Jesus Christ or saved by legalistically depending on following the law. This passage fits into that context nicely, as described by Warren Wiersbe:
So, taking these comments (and many others) into consideration, I have begun to believe that in Galatians 6:1, Paul is primarily addressing the issue of Christians who are pursuing righteousness, but who are doing it imperfectly (and which one of us does that not describe!) They fall into sin because they momentarily get distracted; or they trust the wrong voice; or they fall to the strong appeal of a sin that has been a problem for them in the past that they thought they had defeated; or they say to themselves, "I'm much better now, so I can handle a quick taste of this"; or some other cause.
As I worked through this, I also noticed, maybe for the first time, that this passage is less about the sinner than it is about how I, his fellow believer, will address the problem. Shall I come down on this sinner like a ton of bricks, bringing all the power and authority of the law to bear on him, the way the Judaizers and legalists and Pharisees, etc., had done to so many over the decades. Or shall I being to the sinner the gentle, faithful, grace-filled, loving truth of God, which is meant to restore and to give life and only to condemn if not responded to?
