Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 3

Galatians 3:1. After ἐβάσκανε Elz. (and Matth.) has τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μἡ πείθεσθαι, against decisive evidence. An explanatory addition from Galatians 5:7.

ἐν ὑμῖν] is wanting in A B C א, min., and several vss. and Fathers, and is omitted by Lachm. But not being required, and not understood, how easily might it be passed over! There was no reason in the text for attaching it as a gloss, least of all to κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς προεγρ. (as conjectured by Schott), for these words were in fact perfectly clear by themselves. Justly defended also by Reiche.

Galatians 3:8. ἐνευλογηθήσονται] Elz. gives εὐλογ., against decisive testimony. In Acts 3:25 also, ἐνευλογ. is exchanged in several authorities for the usual simple form.

Galatians 3:10. According to decisive evidence, ὅτι is to be adopted (with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, and Tisch.) before ἐπικατάρατος.

Galatians 3:12. After αὐτά Elz. has ἄνθρωπος, against decisive testimony. Addition from the LXX., Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5.

Galatians 3:13. Instead of γέγρ. γάρ, read, on preponderating testimony, with Lachm. and Tisch., ὅτι γέγραπται approved by Griesb. The former arose from Galatians 3:10.

Galatians 3:17. After Θεοῦ, Elz., Scholz, Reiche, have εἰς Χριστόν, in opposition to A B C א, min., several vss. and Fathers. Added as a gloss, in order, after Galatians 3:16, to make it evident from Galatians 3:24 what covenant is intended, although this is obvious from the context, and the addition was therefore by no means necessary (as maintained by Ewald and Wieseler). In the sequel, ἔτη is (with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Tisch.) to be placed after the number, according to decisive evidence.

Galatians 3:19. προσετέθη] Griesb. and Scholz (following Mill and Bengel) read ἐτέθη. Not sufficiently attested by D* F G and a few min., vss., and Fathers; and the compound verb appeared to conflict with Galatians 3:15.

Instead of ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, only L and many min., along with some Fathers, read ὅ ἐπήγγ. A reading arising from the fact that ᾧ was not understood.

Galatians 3:21. τοῦ Θεοῦ] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. (bracketed by Lachm.), and is therefore so decisively attested that it cannot be regarded as an explanatory addition. The self-evident meaning and the previous reference without τοῦ Θεοῦ (see Galatians 3:16 ff.) led to the omission.

Galatians 3:21. ἂν ἐκ νόμου ἦν] Many variations. F G have merely ἐκ νόμου;[111] D*, Damasc., ἐκ νόμου ἦν; A B C, Cyr., ἐκ νόμου (B, ἐν νόμῳ) ἂν ἦν. In default of internal evidence, the latter is, with Lachm., Tisch., Schott, to be preferred as the best attested (comp. א, ἐκ νόμου ἦν ἄν). The omission of ἄν arose from the ἦν following, just as easily as the omission of ἦν from the following ἡ. The Recepta is to be considered as the restoration of the original ἌΝ in a wrong place.

Galatians 3:23. ΣΥΓΚΕΚΛΕΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ] A B D* F G א, 31, Clem, (once) Cyr. Damasc. read ΣΥΓΚΛΕΙΟΜΈΝΟΙ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm., Scholz, Schott. The Recepta, specially defended by Reiche, is an ancient emendation of the not-understood present participle.

Galatians 3:28. εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] A has low ἐστε Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; and א, ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰ. But εἷς was very easily suppressed by the preceding ὑμεῖς, and then ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ was altered in accordance with the beginning of Galatians 3:29. The reading ἕν instead of εἷς in F G and several vss., also Vulgate, It., and Fathers, is an interpretation.

Galatians 3:29. καί] is wanting in A B C D E א, 89**, and a few vss. and many Fathers, and is expunged by Lachmann, Tisch., and Schott; justly, because it was inserted for the purpose of connection.

[111] Which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 488, considers as probably the original reading.

CONTENTS.

Paul now begins to unfold to his readers that righteousness comes not from the law, but from faith. With this view, after having expressed censure and surprise, he refers in the first place to their own experience, namely, to their reception of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:1-5). He then passes on to Abraham, who had been justified by faith, and of whom believers were the sons who, in conformity with Scripture, were to enjoy with Abraham the blessing announced to him (Galatians 3:6-9). For those that trust in works of the law are cursed, and by the law can no man be justified (Galatians 3:10-12). It is Christ who by His atoning death has freed us from the curse of the law, in order that this blessing should reach the Gentiles through Christ, and the promised Holy Spirit should be received through faith (Galatians 3:13-14). But the covenant of promise concluded with Abraham, which moreover applied not merely to Abraham, but also to Christ, cannot be abrogated by the law which arose long after (Galatians 3:15-18). This leads the apostle to the question as to the destination of the law, which he briefly answers in Galatians 3:19 positively, and then in Galatians 3:20-23 negatively, to the effect that the law is not opposed to the promises. Before the period of faith, the law had the office of a παιδαγωγός in reference to Christ; but after the appearance of faith this relation came to an end, for faith brought believers to the sonship of God, because by baptism fellowship with Christ was established, and thereupon all distinctions apart from Christ vanished away (Galatians 3:23-28). And this fellowship with Christ includes the being children of Abraham and heirs of the promises.

Galatians 3:1. O irrational Galatians! With this address of severe censure Paul turns again to his readers, after the account of his meeting with Peter; for his reprimand to the latter (Galatians 2:15-21) had indeed so pithily and forcibly presented the intermixture of Judaism with faith as absurd, that the excited apostle, in re-addressing readers who had allowed themselves to be carried away to that same incongruous intermingling, could not have seized on any predicate more suitable or more naturally suggested. The more inappropriate, therefore, is the idea of Jerome (comp. also Erasmus, and Spanheim ad Callim. H. in Del. 184, p. 439), who discovered in this expression a natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the nation. But the testimony borne on the other hand by Themist. Or. 23 (in Wetstein, on Galatians 1:6) to the Galatian readiness to learn, and acuteness of understanding—the consciousness of which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt—is also (notwithstanding Hofmann) to be set aside as irrelevant. Comp. Luke 24:25; Titus 3:3τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανε] τίς conveys his astonishment at the great ascendency which the perversion had succeeded in attaining, and by way of emphatic contrast the words τίς ὑμᾶς are placed together: Who hath bewitched you, before whose eyes, etc.? Comp. v. Galatians 5:7.

βασκαίνω (from βάζω, to speak) means here to cast a spell upon (mala lingua nocere, Virg. Ecl. vii. 28), to bewitch by words, to enchant (Bos, Exercitatt. p. 173 f., and Wetstein),—a strong mode of describing the perversion, quite in keeping with the indignant feeling which could hardly conceive it possible. Comp. βασκανία, fascinatio, Plat. Phaed. p. 95 B; βάσκανος, Plut. Symp. Galatians 5:7; ἀβάσκαντος, unenchanted. Hence the word is not to be explained, with Chrysostom and his followers: who has envied you, that is, your previous happy condition?—although this signification is of very frequent occurrence, usually indeed with the dative (Kühner, II. p. 247; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 462; Piers. ad Herodian. p. 470 f.), but also with the accusative in Sir 14:6, Herodian. ii. 4. 11.

οἷς κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησ. Χρ. προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος] This fact, which ought to have guarded the Galatians from being led away to a Judaism opposed to the doctrine of atonement, and which makes their apostasy the more culpable, justifies the question of surprise, of which the words themselves form part; hence the mark of interrogation is to be placed after ἐσταυρ.

κατʼ ὀφθαλμούς] before the eyes. See examples in Wetstein. Comp. κατʼ ὄμματα, Soph. Ant. 756, and on ii. 11.

προεγράφη] is explained by most expositors, either as antea (previously) depictus est (Chrysostom, Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, and others; also Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr), or palam depictus est (most modern expositors, following Calvin; including Winer, Paulus, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Reiche, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Holsten), with which Hofmann compares the brazen serpent in the wilderness, and Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 211 f.) even mixes up a stigmatization with the marks of Christ’s wounds, which Paul, according to Galatians 6:17, is supposed to have borne on his own body. But these interpretations are opposed not only by the words ἐν ὑμῖν (see below), but also by the usus loquendi. For, however frequent may be the occurrence of γράφειν in the sense of to paint, this signification can by no means be proved as to προγράφειν, not even in Arist. Av. 450 (see Rettig in Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 97). The Greek expression for showing how to paint, tracing out, in the sense of a picture given to copy, is ὑπογράφειν. Following Elsner and others, Morus, Flatt, and Schott understand it as palam scriptus est (1Ma 10:36; Lucian, Tim. 51; Plut. Mor. p. 408 D, Demetr. 46, Camill. 11 et al.[112]): “ita Christus vobis est oboculos palam descriptus, quasi in tabula vobis praescriptus,” Morus. This is inconsistent with ἐν ὑμῖν, for these words cannot be joined with ἐσταυρωμένος (see below); and Schott’s interpretation: in animis vestris—so that what was said figuratively by οἷς … προεγρ. is now more exactly defined sermone proprio by ἐν ὑμῖν—makes the ἐν ὑμῖν appear simply as something quite foreign and unsuitable in the connection, by which the figure is marred. In the two other passages where Paul uses προγράφειν (Romans 15:4; Ephesians 3:3) it means to write beforehand, so that πρό has a temporal and not a local signification (comp. Ptol. viii. 25. 15, and see Hermann on our passage); nor is the meaning different in Judges 1:4 (see Huther). And so it is to be taken here.[113] Paul represents his previous preaching of Christ as crucified to the Galatians figuratively as a writing, which he had previously written (προεγράφη) in their hearts (ἐν ὑμῖν). Comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2 f. In this view κατʼ ὀφθαλμούς is that trait of the figure, by which the personal oral instruction is characterized: Paul formerly wrote Christ before their eyes in their hearts, when he stood before them and preached the word of the cross, which through his preaching impressed itself on their hearts. By his vivid illustration he recalls the fact to his readers, who had just been so misled by a preaching altogether different (Galatians 1:6). With no greater boldness than in 2 Corinthians 3:2 f., he has moulded the figure according to the circumstances of the case, as he is wont to do in figurative language (comp. Galatians 4:19); but this does not warrant a pressing of the figure to prove traits physically imcompatible (an objection urged by Reiche). Jerome and others, also Hermann, Bretschneider, and Rettig, l.c. p. 98 ff., have indeed correctly kept to the meaning olim scribere (Rettig, however, remarking undecidedly, that it may also mean palam scribere), but have quite inappropriately referred it to the prophecies of the O.T.: “quibus ante oculos praedictio fuit Christi in crucem sublati,” Hermann. Apart from the circumstance that the precise mode of death by crucifixion is not mentioned in the prophetical utterances, this would constitute a ground for surprise on the part of the apostle of a nature much too general, not founded on the personal relation of Paul to his readers, and therefore by no means adequate as a motive; and, in fact, Galatians 3:2-4 carry back their memory to the time, when Paul was at work among them.

ἐν ὑμῖν] is not, with Grotius, Usteri, and others, to be set aside as a Hebrew pleonasm (אֲשֶׁר בָּכֶם), but is to be understood as in animis vestris (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:2; Soph. Phil. 1309: γράφου φρενῶν ἔσω; Aesch. Prom. 791, Suppl. 991, Choeph. 450), and belongs to ΠΡΟΕΓΡΆΦΗ; in which case, however, the latter cannot mean either palam pictus or palam scriptus est, because then ἘΝ ὙΜῖΝ would involve a contradictio in adjecto, and would not be a fitting epexegesis of οἷς (Winer, comp. Schott), for the depicting and the placarding cannot take place otherwise than on something external. To take ἐν ὑμῖν as among you and connect it with ΠΡΟΕΓΡ., would yield not a strengthening of οἷς (as de Wette holds), but an empty addition, from which Reiche and Wieseler also obtain nothing more than a purport obvious of itself.[114] On the other hand, Hofmann hits upon the expedient of dividing the words οἷς … ἐσταυρ. into two independent sentences: (1) Before whose eyes is Jesus Christ; (2) as the Crucified One, He has been freely and publicly delineated among you. But, apart from the linguistically incorrect view of προεγράφη, this dismemberment would give to the language of the passage a violently abrupt form, which is the more intolerable, as Paul does not dwell further on the asyndetically introduced προεγρ. ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρ. or subjoin to it any more particular statement, but, on the contrary, in Galatians 3:2 brings forward asyndetically a new thought. Instead of introducing it abruptly in a way so liable to misapprehension, he would have subjoined προεγράφη—if it was not intended to belong to οἷς—in some simple form by γάρ or ὅτι or ὅς or ὅσγε. Without any impropriety, he might, on the other hand, figuratively represent that he who preaches Christ to others writes (not placards or depicts) Christ before their eyes in their hearts. Most expositors connect ἐν ὑμῖν with ἐσταυρ., and explain either as propter vos (Koppe), contrary to the use of ἐν with persons (see on Galatians 1:24); or, unsuitably to the figurative idea κατʼ ὀφθαλμοὺς κ.τ.λ., in animis vestris;[115] or (as usually) inter vos: “so clearly, so evidently … just as if crucified among you,” Rückert. But the latter must have been expressed by ὡς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρ., and would also presuppose that the apostle’s preaching of the cross had embodied a vivid and detailed description of the crucifixion. It was not this however, but the fact itself (as the ἱλαστήριον), which formed the sum and substance of the preaching of the cross; as is certain from the apostle’s letters. Lastly, Luther’s peculiar interpretation, justly rejected by Calovius, but nevertheless again adopted in substance by Matthias,—that ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρ. is a severe censure, “quod Christus (namely, after the rejection of grace) non vivit, sed mortuus in eis est (Hebrews 6:6),” which Paul had laid before them argumentis praedictis,—is as far-fetched, as alien from the usual Pauline mode of expression, and as unsuitable to the context as the view of Cajetanus, that, according to the idea “Christ suffers in His members” (Colossians 1:24), ἐν ὑμ. ἐσταυρ. is equivalent to for the sake of whom ye have suffered so much.

ἐσταυρ.] as the Crucified One, is with great emphasis moved on to the end. Comp. 1 Corinthians 2:2; 1 Corinthians 1:23.

[112] On this meaning is based the interpretation of Ambrose, Augustine, and Lyra, “He was proscribed, that is, condemned,” which is indeed admissible so far as usage goes (Polyb. xxxii. 21, 12, xxxii. 22, 1; Plut. Brut. 27), but quite unsuitable to the context. Comp. Vulgate: proscriptus est, instead of which, however, Lachmann has praescriptus est.

[113] So taken correctly also by Matthias, who, however, explains the expression from the idea of an amulet used against the enchantment. But this idea would presuppose some secret writing, the very opposite of which is conveyed by the expression.

[114] Reiche, “id factum esse a se, gentium apostolo, inter eos praesente” (not, it might be, alio loco or per homines sublestae fidei, not clanculum, but cunctis, publico eorum conventu, etc.). Wieseler: “not merely from a distance by means of an epistle.”

[115] To this category belongs Bengel’s mystical interpretation, “forma crucis ejus in corde vestro per fidem expressa, ut jam vos etiam cum illo crucefigeremini.” Thus the expression would signify the killing of the old man which had taken place through ethical fellowship in the death of Christ, to which ἐν ὑμ. ἐσταυρ. is referred by Storr also. A similar view is taken by Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 24: that ἐν ὑμῖν is proleptic, “so that He, as the atoning One, came into and abode in you;” comp. Ewald, “to paint clearly before the eyes that Christ is now really crucified in them, and, since they have Him in them, He has not been crucified for them in vain;” also Windischmann.

Galatians 3:2. The foolishness of their error is now disclosed to them, by reminding them of their reception of the Holy Spirit. “Vide, quam efficaciter tractat locum ab experientia,” Luther, 1519.

τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφʼ ὑμῶν] This only—not to speak of other self-confessions, which I might demand of you for your refutation—this only I wish to become aware of from you. Bengel pertinently remarks: “μόνον, grave argumentum.” To take μαθεῖν (with Luther, Bengel, Paulus) in the narrower sense to learn—the apostle thus representing himself ironically as a scholar—is justified neither by the tone of the context nor by the tenor of the question, which in fact concerns not a doctrine, but simply a piece of information; μανθάνω is well known in the sense of to come to know, cognoscere. See Acts 23:27; Exodus 2:4; 2Ma 7:2; 3Ma 1:1; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 31; Hell. ii. 1. 1; Aesch. Agam. 615. Comp. Soph. Oed. Col. 505: τοῦτο βούλομαι μαθεῖν.

ἀφʼ ὑμῶν] is not used instead of παρʼ ὑμῶν (Rückert); for ἀπό also may denote a direct μαθεῖν (comp. especially Colossians 1:7): see on 1 Corinthians 11:23. And this is what Paul means, for he conceives himself speaking with his readers as if they were present.

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου κ.τ.λ.] Was it your fulfilment of works which the law prescribes (comp. on Galatians 2:16), or was it the preaching to you of faith (that is, faith in Christ), which caused your reception of the Spirit? The πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit (the personal divine principle of the whole Christian nature and life), and the Holy Spirit viewed generally according to His very various modes of operation, by which He makes Himself known in different individuals; not merely in relation to the miraculous gifts, 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome); for Paul reminds the whole body of his readers of their reception of the Spirit, and it is not till Galatians 3:5 that the δυνάμεις are specially brought forward as a specific form of the operations of the Spirit. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 27 f.

The ἤ which follows means: or, on the other hand; “duo directe opposita,” Bengel. The ἀκοὴ πίστεως is explained either as the hearing of faith (reception of the gospel preached: Vulgate, Beza, Bengel, Morus, Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others), or as that which is heard, i.e. the report, the message of faith, which treats of faith, ἀκοή admits of either meaning (for the former, comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 142 D.; Plut. Mor. p. 41 E; Soph. El. 30; LXX. 1 Samuel 15:22 : and for the latter, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 274 C; Dem. 1097. 3; LXX. Isaiah 53:1; John 12:38; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:2; Sir 40:12). But πίστεως is decisive in favour of the latter, for it is never the “doctrina fidei” (see on Galatians 1:23), but always the subjective faith, which however, as here, may be regarded objectively; and hence also adherents of the second interpretation (as Calvin, Grotius, Zachariae, Rosenmüller, and others) are wrong in taking πίστις as system of doctrine. Moreover, ἀκοή, in the sense of preaching (discourse heard), but not in the sense of auditio, is familiar in the N.T. (so even in Romans 10:16, John 12:38, passages which Matthias seeks to explain differently); hence Holsten incorrectly takes πίστεως as the genitive of the subject to ἀκοῆς, so that the πίστις is the ἀκούουσα,—a view opposed also by Romans 10:17. But Hofmann also is incorrect in holding that it should be construed ἐκ πίστεως ἀκοῆς (faith in news announced); against which the antithesis ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is decisive. Through the news concerning faith, which was preached to them, the readers had become believers (Romans 10:17; Hebrews 4:2), and consequently partakers of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, Flatt and Matthies, following a few ancient expositors, have quite arbitrarily and, although not without linguistic precedent in the LXX. (1 Samuel 15:22), without any countenance from the N.T., understood ἀκοῆς as equivalent to ὑπακοῆς (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26; 1 Peter 1:22). The acceptance of the ἀκοὴ πίστεως which took place on the part of the readers was understood by them as a matter of course, since from this ἀκοή proceeded the reception of the Spirit. They were in fact called through the gospel.

Galatians 3:3. Are ye to such a degree irrational?—pointing to what follows. The interrogative view (in opposition to Hofmann) is in keeping with the fervour of the language, and is logically justified by the indication of the high degree implied in οὕτως. On οὕτως, comp. Soph. Ant. 220, οὐκ ἔστιν οὕτω μῶρος: John 3:16; Galatians 1:6; Hebrews 12:21; and see Voigtländer, ad Luc. D. M. p. 220; Jacob, ad Luc. Alex. p. 28.

ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι, νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε;] After ye have begun by means of the Spirit, are ye now brought to completion by means of the flesh? The second part of the sentence is ironical: “After ye have made a beginning in the Christian life by your receiving the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:2), are ye now to be made perfect by your becoming persons whose life is subject to the government of the σάρξ? Do ye lend yourselves to such completion as this?” In the same measure in which the readers went back to the legal standpoint and departed from the life of faith, must they again be emptied of the Holy Spirit which they had received, and consequently be re-converted from πνευματικοί into σαρκικοί (Romans 7:5; Romans 7:14), that is, men who, loosed from the influence of the Holy Spirit, are again under the dominion of the σάρξ which impels to sin (Romans 7:14 ff; Romans 8:7 f., et al.). For the law cannot overcome the σάρξ (Romans 8:3-4; 1 Corinthians 15:56). According to this view, therefore, πνεῦμα and σάρξ[116] designate, not Christianity and Judaism themselves, but the specific agencies of life in Christianity and Judaism (Romans 7:5-6), expressed, indeed, without the article in qualitative contrast as Spirit and flesh, but in the obvious concrete application meaning nothing else than the Holy Spirit and the unspiritual, corporeal and psychical nature of man, which draws him into opposition to God and inclination to sin (see e.g. Romans 4:1; John 3:6).

ἐναρξάμενοι] What it is which they have begun, is obvious from πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε in Galatians 3:2, namely, the state into which they entered through the reception of the Spirit—the Christian life.[117] This reception is “the indisputable sign of the existence and working of true Christianity,” Ewald.

ἘΠΙΤΕΛΕῖΣΘΕ] is understood by most modern expositors (including Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann) as middle (comp. Luther, Castalio, and others); although Koppe (with whom Rückert agrees) entirely obliterates the literal sense by the assumption, that it is put so only for the sake of the contrast and denotes “tantum id, quod nunc inter Gal. fieri solebat, contrarium pristinae eorum sapientiae,” etc. Winer explains more definitely: “carne finire, h. e. ita ad τὴν σάρκα se applicare, ut in his studiis ΣΑΡΚΙΚΟῖς plane acquiescas;” and Wieseler: “instead of your advancing onward to the goal, ye make the most shameful retrogression;” comp. Hofmann. But ἘΠΙΤΕΛΕῖΝ and ἘΠΙΤΕΛΕῖΣΘΑΙ always denote ending in the sense of completion, of accomplishing and bringing fully to a conclusion (consummare): see especially Php 1:6, ὁ ἐναρξάμενος … ἐπιτελέσει; 1 Samuel 3:12, ἌΡΞΟΜΑΙ ΚΑῚ ἘΠΙΤΕΛΈΣΩ: Zechariah 4:9; Luke 13:32; Romans 15:28; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 2 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 8:11; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 9:6. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 90. 4, ὍΣΑ ἮΝ ὙΠΌΛΟΙΠΑ ἘΠΙΤΕΛΈΣΑΙ: Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 13. If, therefore, the word is taken as middle, it must be explained: “After ye have begun (your Christian life) with the Spirit, do ye now bring (that which ye have begun) to completion with the flesh?” Comp. Holsten. But the active to complete is always in the N.T. represented by ἐπιτελεῖν, not by ἘΠΙΤΕΛΕῖΣΘΑΙ in the middle (comp., on the contrary, 1 Peter 5:9), however undoubted is the occurrence of the medial use among Greek authors (Plat. Phil. p. 27 C; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 8; Polyb. i. 40. 16, ii. 58. 10, v. 108. 9). Moreover, the τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῆ which follows (see on Galatians 3:4) makes the subject of ἘΠΙΤΕΛΕῖΣΘΕ appear as suffering, and thereby indicates the word to be passive, as, following the Vulgate (consummamini), Chrysostom, and Theophylact, many of the older expositors have understood it,[118]—viz., so that the Judaistic operations, which the readers had experience of and allowed to be practised on themselves, are expressed by antiphrasis, and doubtless in reference to their own opinion and that of their teachers, as their Christian completion (τέλειοι ποιεῖσθε!). Comp. also Matthias, Vomel, Reithmayr. But how cutting and putting to shame this irony is, is felt at once from the contradictory juxtaposition of carne perficimini! Nearest to our view (without, however, bringing forward the ironical character of the words) comes that of Beza, who says that perficimini applies to the teaching of the pseudo-apostles, who ascribed “Christo tantum initia, legi perfectionem justitiae.” Comp. Semler. The present denotes that the Galatians were just occupied in this ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Comp. Galatians 1:6. The emphatic ΝῦΝ (“nunc, cum magis magisque deberetis spirituales fieri relicta carne,” Bengel) should have prevented it from being taken as the Attic future (Studer, Usteri).

[116] Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many ancient expositors, Rückert, Usteri, and Schott believe that σαρκί is chosen with special reference to circumcision (Ephesians 2:11). But the context by no means treats specially of circumcision, and the contrast of itself necessarily involved σαρκί.

[117] Bos, Wolf, and others, as also Schott, assume the figurative idea of a race in the stadium. But this reference would require to be suggested by the context (as in v. 7); for although ἐπιτελεῖσθαι is used of the completion of a race, as of every kind of completion (Herodian. viii. 8. 5, iii. 8. 17 f., iv. 2. 7), it has not this special meaning of itself, but acquires it from the context.

[118] Some of them indeed translating it passively, but in the interpretation (comp. Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Bengel) not strictly maintaining the passive sense.

Galatians 3:4. After Paul, by the νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε, has reminded his readers of all that they had most foolishly submitted to at the hands of the false apostles, in order to be made, according to their own and their teachers’ fancy, finished Christians, he now discloses to them the uselessness of it in the exclamation (not interrogation), “So much have ye suffered without profit!” What he means by τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε, is therefore everything with which the false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had molested and burdened the Galatians,—the many exactions, in name of compliance with the law, which these had necessarily to undergo at the hands of their new teachers. Comp. Galatians 1:6 f., Galatians 4:10, Galatians 5:2; Galatians 5:8, Galatians 6:12, Galatians 2:4. Comp. 2 Corinthians 11:20. Bengel refers it to the patient endurance of the apostle’s ministry, produced through the Holy Spirit; but this view is not at all suggested by the context, and would not correspond to the sense of πάσχειν (but rather of ἀνέχεσθαι). All the expositors before Schomer (in Wolf) and Homberg, as also Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Semler, Michaelis, Morus, Rückert, Olshausen, Reithmayr, and others, understand it (following Chrysostom and Augustine) of the sufferings and persecutions on account of Christianity; so that Paul asks, “Have ye suffered so much in vain? Seeing, namely, that ye have fallen away from the faith and hence cannot attain to the glory which tribulation brings in its train” (2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:17). But, apart from the fact that no extraordinary sufferings on the part of the Galatians are either touched upon in the epistle (Galatians 4:29 is quite general in its character) or known to us otherwise, this interpretation is completely foreign to the connection. After Schomer and Homberg, others (including Schoettgen, Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Matthias) explain it: “So many benefits (by means of the Spirit) have ye experienced in vain?” So also Fritzsche, Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 54, and Holsten. Certainly πάσχω, something befalls me, is a vox media (hence Matthies even wishes to understand it of the agreeable and disagreeable together), which, according to the well-known Greek usage, as the passive side of the idea of ποιεῖν, may be employed also of happy experiences (Xen. Anab. v. 5. 9: ἀγαθὸν μέν τι πάσχειν, κακὸν δὲ μηδέν); but, as the latter use of the word always occurs with a qualitative addition either expressed (εὖ, χάριν, τερπνόν, ἀγαθά, ὀνήσιμα, or the like) or indicated beyond doubt by the immediate context (as Joseph. Antt. iii. 15. Galatians 1 : ὅσα παθόντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ πηλίκων εὐεργεσιῶν μεταλαβόντες), it is not to be found at all in the whole of the New Test., the LXX., or the Apocrypha (not even Esther 9:29). Thus the interpretation, even if τοσαῦτα could convey any such qualitative definition of the text, is without precedent in the usage of Scripture. Paul in particular, often as he speaks about the experiences of divine grace, never uses for this purpose πάσχειν, which with him always denotes the experience of suffering. He would have written, as the correlative of the bestowal of grace, ἐλάβετε or ἐδέξασθε (2 Corinthians 6:1). Ewald’s suggestion of powerful and vehement movements of the Spirit is forced, and unwarranted by the text. The very word τοσαῦτα points to the suffering of evil, just as πολλά, μάλα πολλὰ παθεῖν, without κακά or the like, is frequently so used in Greek authors.

εἴγε καὶ εἰκῆ] A hint that the case might be still worse than was expressed in εἰκῆ: if indeed it is only in vain (and not even to the positive jeopardy of your Messianic salvation) that ye have suffered. On καί, compare Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 136; Baeuml. Partik. p. 150. So, in substance, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Kypke, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Paulus, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, Matthias, and others. Chrysostom and his followers discover a mitigation and encouragement to improvement in the words (εἰ γὰρ βουληθείητέ φησιν ἀνανῆψαι καὶ ἀνακτήσασθαι ἑαυτοὺς, οὐκ εἰκῆ, Chrysostom), as also Ambrose, Luther,[119] Erasmus, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, and others. In this case ΚΑΊ must be understood as really (Hartung, I. p. 132); but the idea of improvement, whereby the supposed case of the εἰκῆ would be cancelled, is not indicated by aught in the context. Even should the words be taken as merely leaving open the possibility, that matters had not actually already gone so far with the readers (Hofmann), Paul himself would have rendered his very earnest reproach τοσαῦτα ἐπάθ. εἰκῆ both problematical and ambiguous, and would thus have taken the whole pith out of it.

ΕἼΓΕ] assuming, namely, that ye even only, etc., makes the condition more prominent, and serves to intensify the mere εἰ. Paul fears that more may take place than that which was only expressed by εἰκῆ. This, however, is conveyed by the context, and is independent of the ΓΈ, instead of which ΠΈΡ might have been used. See Baeuml. l.c. p. 64 f. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 5:3; Ephesians 3:2. Still more marked prominence would have been given to the condition by εἴπερ γε καί (Plat. Theaet. p. 187 D; Herod. vi. 16).

[119] “Objurgat quidem, sed ita ut semper oleum juxta infundat, ne eos ad desperationem adigat.… Non omnino abjeci spem de vobis.”

Galatians 3:5. After the logical parenthesis (Galatians 3:3-4), οὖν resumes (Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 719) what was said in Galatians 3:2, but in an altered tense (the present), in order to annex the example of Abraham as a proof of justification by faith.

ἐπιχορηγῶν and ἐνεργῶν are not to be understood as imperfect participles (Castalio, Bengel, Semler, and others); for, if referring to the reception of the Spirit for the first time corresponding to ἐλάβετε in Galatians 3:2, Paul must have written ἐπιχορηγήσας and ἐνεργήσας. No, he denotes the ἐπιχορηγεῖν κ.τ.λ. as still continuing among the Galatians; it has not yet ceased, although now, of course, in consequence of the active efforts of the Judaizers under which they had suffered, it could not but be less strong and general than previously (νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε, Galatians 3:3); “nondum ceciderant, sed inclinabantur, ut caderent,” Augustine.

In ἐπιχορηγεῖν the ἐπί is not insuper, but denotes the direction, as in the German ‘darreichen, zukommen lassen’ (2 Corinthians 9:10; Colossians 2:19; 2 Peter 1:5; comp. also Php 1:19).

καὶ ἐνεργ.] and—to make mention of a particular χάρισμα—which, etc.

δυνάμεις] may be miracles (1 Corinthians 12:10), in which case ἐν is among (Winer and others); or miraculous powers (1 Corinthians 12:28), in which case ἐν is within you (Borger, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Wieseler, and others). The analogy of 1 Corinthians 12:6 (comp. Php 2:13; Ephesians 2:2) favours the latter.

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἤ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστ.] sc. ποιεῖ τοῦτο (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 336), or ἐπιχορηγεῖ ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα κ. ἐνεργεῖ δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν; Is this his operation upon you caused by works of the law or by the news of faith? comes it in consequence of your prosecuting those works, or of such news being communicated to you? by the former way of active merit, or by the latter way of the reception of divine preaching? As to ἀκοὴ πίστεως, here also not (with Hofmann) = πίστις ἀκοῆς, see on Galatians 3:2.

Galatians 3:6. The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question is: ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; and to this, but not directly to that question itself (as Hofmann holds, according to his wrong interpretation of ἀκοῆς πίστεως), Paul subjoins—making use of the words well known to his readers, Genesis 15:6, according to the LXX.—that great religious-historic argument for the righteousness of faith, which is presented in the justification of the progenitor of the theocratic people. Seeing that Paul has just specified the operation of the Spirit caused by the preached news of faith, as that which proves the justifying power of faith, he may with just logic continue: even as Abraham believed God (trusted His Messianic promise; comp. on John 8:56), and it (this faith) was counted to him as righteousness, that is, in the judgment of the gracious God was imputed to him as rectitude.[120] Neither, therefore, is a colon to be placed (with Koppe) after Ἀβρ., nor (with Beza and Hilgenfeld) is Galatians 3:6 to be considered as protasis and Galatians 3:7 as apodosis, for Galatians 3:7 is evidently independent, and it would be a very arbitrary course (with Hilgenfeld) to take Galatians 3:6 as an anacoluthon. See, moreover, on Romans 4:3; Hoelemann, de justitiœ ex fide ambabus in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867, p. 8 ff. For the reward of Abraham’s justifying faith according to Gen. l.c., see Jam 2:22 f.; 1Ma 2:52; and Mechilta in Jalkut Sim. I. f. 69. 3, “hoc planum est, Abrahamum neque hunc mundum neque futurum haereditate consequi potuisse, nisi per fidem, qua credidit, q. d. Genesis 15:6.”

[120] It is self-evident from the words of the text, how improperly the idea of sanctification is here mixed up with justification by the Catholics (also Bisping and Reithmayr). We have here justification simply as an actus forensis of the divine judgment, and that proceeding from grace. Romans 4:2 ff.

Galatians 3:7. Know ye therefore (since Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness) that those who are of faith, etc.

γινώσκετε is taken as indicative by Cyprian, ep. 63 ad Caecil., Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Piscator, Semler, Rosenmüller, Rückert, Reithmayr, and others. The tone of the passage is more animated by taking it as imperative.[121]

οἱ ἐκ πίστ.] designates believers, according to this their specific peculiarity, under the point of view of origin. It is faith from which their spiritual state of life proceeds. Comp. Romans 2:8; Romans 3:26; Romans 4:14; John 18:37, et al.

οὕτοι] has the emphasis (comp. Romans 8:14; Romans 9:6): these, and no others. The contrast here is usually supposed to be: not the bodily descendants of Abraham. But how foreign to the context is a comparison between the bodily and spiritual children of Abraham! The only interpretation in harmony with the context is: “these, and not those who are ἐξ ἔργων νόμου.” See Galatians 3:8-10. So also, correctly, Rückert and Wieseler.

ΥἹΟῚ ἈΒΡ.] children of Abraham in the true sense. For the true υἱοί can have no nature different from the essential nature of the father. Comp. John 8:8; John 8:39; Romans 4:11 f.

[121] The Vulgate has in Lachmann’s text, cognoscite. So also Castalio, Calvin, and others, as well as most modern expositors.