Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Galatians 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
III. REFUTATORY PORTION OF THE LETTER
THE DOCTRINE THAT MEN, BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES, BECOME ACCEPTABLE TO GOD THROUGH FAITH RATHER THAN BY WORKS OF LAW, DEFENDED BY THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE JUDAISERS, AND CHIEFLY BY SHOWING THAT THE “HEIRS OF ABRAHAM” ARE SUCH BY FAITH, NOT BY WORKS OF LAW (CHAPS. 3, 4).
1. Appeal to the early Christian experience of the Galatians (3:1-5)
Leaving the defence of his doctrine through the assertion of his own direct divine commission, the apostle now takes up that defence by refuting the objections to it brought by his opponents, the judaisers. Vv. 1-5 begin that refutation by appealing to the early Christian experience of the Galatians, which, as both they and he well knew, was not in the sphere of law, but of faith.
Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was placarded crucified? 2This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? Having begun with Spirit are ye now finishing with flesh? 4Did ye suffer so many things in vain? If it really is to be in vain. 5He therefore that supplied the Spirit richly to you and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith?
1. ὮἀότιΓλτι τςὑᾶ ἐάκνν οςκτ ὀθλοςἸσῦ Χιτςπογάηἐτυωέο; “Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was placarded crucified?” Returning to the situation in Galatia itself, which he had left behind in 1:9, but still having in mind what he had just said in 2:21 to the effect that the legalistic teaching of the judaisers makes the death of Christ a fact without significance, a useless tragedy, the apostle breaks forth, somewhat as in 1:6, in an expression of surprise touched with indignation that the Galatians were turning away from his gospel of Christ crucified (cf. 1Co_1:17, 1Co_1:23, 1Co_1:2:2). To this great fact, which Paul had set forth before the Galatians with the clearness of a public proclamation on a bulletin-board, and which it should, therefore, have been impossible for them ever to forget, the preaching of the judaisers tends to blind them as by malicious magic. The verb βσαν (see below) is doubtless used tropically with the meaning “lead astray,” and the question, which is, of course, rhetorical, refers to the same persons who in 1:7 are spoken of as troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the Christ. On the people here designated Galatians, see Introd. pp. xxi-xliv.
The addition of τ ἀηεᾳμ πίεθιafter ἐάκννby CDcKLP al. pler., is a manifest corruption under the influence of 5:7.
Ἀότς a classical word from Sophocles and Herodotus down, is found in N. T., besides here and v. 3, in Luk_24:25, Rom_1:14, 1Ti_6:9, Tit_3:2. Properly a passive, “unthinkable,” it has in N. T., as also ordinarily in classical writers and regularly in the Lxx, the active sense, “foolish,” “lacking in the power of perception.” 1Ti_6:9 is not a real exception, the word properly describing a person being applied by easy metonymy to his desires. The usage of the word, both classical and biblical, suggests failure to use one’s powers of perception rather than natural stupidity, and the context, especially v. 3, clearly points to the former sense for the present passage. See Hdt. 1:87 8:24; Xen. An. 2. 1:13; Mem. 1. 3:9; Plat. Protag. 323D; Php_12D; Legg. III 687D; Pro_15:21, Pro_17:28, Sir. 42:8, 4 Mac. 5:9, 8:17, Luk_24:25, Rom_1:14, 1Ti_6:9, Tit_3:3.
The verb βσαν, signifying in classical authors, to slander (Dem. 94:19 291:22), “to envy” (Dem. 464:24), “to bewitch” (Theocr. 5:13 6:39; Arist. Probl. 20. 34 [926 b:21]; Herodian 2. 4:11) is used in the Lxx and Apocr. (Deu_28:54, Deu_28:56, Sir. 14:6, 3) with the meaning, “to envy,” but very clearly has here, as in Aristot. and Theocr. loc. cit., the meaning “to bewitch.” For the evidence that the possibility of one person bewitching, exercising a spell upon another was matter of current belief both among Gentiles and Jews, see HDB, arts. “Magic,” esp. vol. III, p. 208a, and “Sorcery,” vol. IV, p. 605b; M. and M. Voc. s. v. See also Ltft. ad loc.; Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 253-293; Blau, Das altjü Zauberwesen, pp. 23 ff. Concerning the practice of magic arts in general, cf. φραί, chap. 5:20, Act_19:19, and Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 273 ff., 323 f., 352 ff. It would be over-pressing the facts to infer from Paul’s use of this word that he necessarily believed in the reality of magical powers, and still more so to assume that he supposed the state of mind of the Galatians to be the result of such arts. It is more probable that the word, while carrying a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves use the word “bewitch,” meaning “to pervert,” “to confuse the mind.”
On οςκτ ὀθλοςcf. Aristoph. Ran. 625, ἵασικτ ὀθλοςλγ, and chap. 2:11: κτ πόωο ατ ἀτση.
Πορφ occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (1) “to write beforehand,” the πο being temporal (Rom_15:4, Eph_3:2); (2) “to write publicly,” “to register” (Jud_1:4, but by some assigned to the previous sense); (3) “to write at the head of the list.” The third meaning does not occur in biblical writers and may be dismissed as wholly inappropriate to the context. To take it in the first sense as referring to O. T. prophecy, though consistent with current usage, is excluded by κτ ὀθλος to take it in this sense and refer it to Paul’s own presentation of Christ to the Galatians is forbidden by the inappropriateness of γάωto describe the apostle’s viva voce preaching; for if πο be taken temporally, ἐρφ alone remains to describe the act itself. Many commentators on this passage give to the word the sense “to paint publicly,” “to depict before, or openly.” So Th. Jowett, and Sief., the last-named citing, also, Calv. deW. Holst. Phil. Lips. Zö et al. The argument for this meaning rests not upon extant instances of πορφ in this sense, but upon the usage of the simple γάωin the sense “to paint” and the appropriateness of the meaning “to depict publicly” to this context. But in view of the absence of vouchers for this meaning—even the instances of γάωin the sense “to paint” are, so far at least as cited by lexicographers or commentators on this passage, much earlier than the N. T. period—and of the fact that taking πογ·in the meaning “to write publicly,” “to placard,” yields a meaning more suitable to ἐτυωέο (see below), it is best to accept this latter meaning for this passage, and to understand the apostle as describing his preaching to the Galatians under the figure of public announcement or placarding of Jesus before them.
Ἐτυωέο means “having been crucified,” and doubtless in the sense of “having been put to death on the cross”; the perfect participle expresses an existing (in this case permanent) result of the past fact of crucifixion. To express the idea “in the act of being crucified” would require a present participle, if the thought were “in the act of being affixed to the cross,” and probably if it were “hanging on the cross.” For while the verb σαρωmay be used of the affixing to the cross (Mat_27:35), yet it seems usually to refer to the putting to death on the cross as a whole (Act_2:36, Act_4:10, etc.) and the participle ἐτυωέο is used in N. T. of Jesus, not as having been affixed to the cross and hanging there, but invariably of him as one who was put to death on the cross, and thenceforth, though risen from the dead, the crucified one. See Mat_28:5, Mar_16:6, 1Co_1:23, 1Co_2:2. The tense of the participle, therefore, constitutes a strong objection to taking πορφ in the sense of “paint before,” and in favour of the meaning “to placard, to post publicly”; a picture would doubtless present Jesus on the cross; the crucifixion as an accomplished fact would be matter for public writing, announcement, as it were, on a public bulletin.
Σαρς(root: sta) occurs from Homer down, meaning a stake, used for fencing (Oba_1:14:11) or driven into the ground for a foundation (Hdt. 5:16). σαρωused in Thuc. 7. 25:7, meaning “to fence with stakes,” first appears in Polybius with reference to a means of inflicting death (1. 86:4), where it probably means “to crucify.” Polybius also uses ἀατυό apparently in the same sense (1. 11:5; 1. 24:6; 1. 79:4), but also with the meaning “to impale” (a dead body, 5. 54:6; 8. 23:3), which is its meaning in Hdt. 3:125; 6:30; 9:78, etc.; Thuc. 1. 110:3; Plato Gorg. 473C; Xen. An. 3. 1:17. In Est_7:9, Est_8:13 line 34 (Swete 16:18) it is used of the hanging of Haman upon a gallows (עץ ξλν said in 5:14 to be fifty cubits high. In 7:9 σαρωtranslates תָָ, “to hang,” elsewhere in this book translated with reference to the same event by κεάνμ. Impalement or hanging as a method of inflicting death, or as applied to the dead body of a criminal, was practised by various ancient nations, e. g., the Assyrians (cf the Lexicons of Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt under Zagapu and Zagipu; Schrader, Keilinschriften des A. T. 3, pp. 387 f.; Code of Hammurabi, Statute 153, in Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, p. 45, or R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, p. 55); the Egyptians (cf. Gen_40:22 Jos. Ant. 2. 73 [5:3]); the Persians (cf. Ezr_6:11); but it is not possible always to determine precisely what method is referred to. Among the Jews the bodies of certain criminals were after death hanged upon a tree or impaled (Jos_8:29, Jos_8:10:26, 2Sa_4:12), but there is no sufficient evidence that these methods were used for inflicting death, 2Sa_21:6-9 being too obscure to sustain this conclusion. Hanging in the modern sense, of suspension causing immediate death by strangulation, is referred to as a means of committing suicide, Hdt. 2:131; Thuc. 3:81; 2Sa_17:23, Tob. 3:10, Mat_27:5, but was probably unknown in ancient times as a means of inflicting the death penalty. Crucifixion, i. e., the affixing of the body of the criminal, while still living, to an upright post (with or without a crosspiece) to which the body was nailed or otherwise fastened, death resulting from pain and hunger after hours of suffering, was not a Jewish method of punishment; though employed by Alexander Jannæ Jos. Bell. 1:17 (4:6), it was inflicted upon Jews, as a rule, only by the Romans. With what nation or in what region this peculiarly cruel form of death penalty originated is not wholly certain. Diod. Sic. 17. 46:4, speaking of Alexander the Great before Tyre, says: ὁδ βσλὺ …τὺ …νοςπνα, ὄτςοχἐάτυ τνδσιίν ἐρμσ. Romans of the later days of the republic and early days of the empire ascribed its origin to Punic Carthage, but perhaps without good evidence. Among the Romans crucifixion was for a time (but perhaps not originally) practised only in the case of slaves and the worst of criminals. When the use of it was gradually extended, especially in the provinces (Jos. Ant. 17. 295 [10:10]; Bell. 5. 449-51 [11:1]) to others than these, it retained the idea of special disgrace.
The word σαρς properly referring to the upright stake, came through its use with reference to the implement of crucifixion to designate what we now know as a cross (in N. T. the word ξλνis still used, Act_5:30, Act_5:10:39, 1Pe_2:24; cf. Gal_3:13), and through the fact that it was on the cross that Jesus suffered death, came to be employed by metonymy for the death of Jesus, carrying with it by association the thought of the suffering and the disgrace in the eyes of men which that death involved and of the salvation which through it is achieved for men. See chap. 5:11, 6:14, 1Co_1:18, Php_3:18, Col_1:20.
On the cross and crucifixion in general, and the crucifixion of Jesus in particular, see Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Wö s. v.; Zö Das Kreuz Christi; Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung; W. W. Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, esp. the bibliography, pp. XXI-XXX; the articles “Cross” and “Hanging” in Encyc. Bibl. and HDB, and those on “Kreuz” and “Kreuzigung” in PRE., and in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon; Mommsen, Rö Strafrecht, pp. 918 ff; Hitzig, art. “Crux” in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopä d. klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (with references to literature). On the archæ of the cross Zö refers especially to Lipsius, De Cruce, Antwerp, 1595; Zestermann, Die bildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes u. der Kreuzigung Jesu Christi historisch entwickelt, Leipzig, 1867; Degen. Das Kreuz als Strafwerkzeug u. Strafe der Alten, Aachen, 1873; the Code of Hammurabi, Statute 153 (in Winckler or Harper); Birch and Pinches, The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat, London, 1902, Plates B2. D4 and J3.
2. τῦομννθλ μθῖ ἀʼὑῶ, ἐ ἔγννμυτ πεμ ἐάεεἢἐ ἀοςπσες “This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith?” A forcible appeal to the experience of the Galatians. The implication of μννis that an answer to the question about to be asked would itself be a decisive argument. For μνάῳin the general sense here illustrated, “to ascertain,” “to find out,” see Act_23:27, Col_1:7. On ἐ ἔγννμν see detached note on Νμςand note on 2:16. ἀο πσεςis a hearing (of the gospel) accompanied by faith (see detached note on Πσι), in other words, a believing-hearing, acceptance, of the gospel. τ πεμ undoubtedly refers to the Spirit of God (see detached note on Πεμ and Σρ, and especially III B. 1 (a) in the analysis of meanings on p. 490). The receiving of the Spirit here referred to is evidently that which marked the beginning of their Christian lives; cf. ἐαξμνιv. 3 and see Rom_8:23, 2Co_1:22, 2Co_5:5. That the apostle has especially, though not necessarily exclusively, in mind the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit evidenced by some outward sign, such as speaking with tongues or prophesying, is indicated by the reference to δνμι in v. 5. See also Act_8:14-17, 10:44-47, Act_8:11:16, Act_8:17, 19:Act_8:1-6, 1Co_12:4-11. The two contrasted phrases ἐ ἔγνννο and ἐ ἀοςπσεςexpress the leading antithesis of the whole epistle, and by this question Paul brings the issue between the two contrasted principles of religious life to the test of experience. The answer which the experience of the Galatians would supply, and which therefore did not require to be expressed, was of course ἐ ἀοςπσες The testimony of these vv. that Paul in his preaching in Galatia and doubtless elsewhere, since he more than once in this epistle implicitly claims always to have preached the same gospel (see on 1:11 and 2:2), presented his message to the Gentiles wholly divorced from any insistence upon the acceptance of O. T. teachings as such, is of capital importance, both in defining for us the content of his gospel (cf. also 1Th_1:10) and as showing how completely he had early in his career as an apostle, and not simply when forced to it by controversy, repudiated the principle of scripture authority.
3. οτςἀότίἐτ; ἐαξμνιπεμτ ννσρὶἐιεεσε “Are ye so foolish? having begun with Spirit, are ye now finishing with flesh?” The antithesis is twofold: beginning …completing; spirit …flesh. ἐαξμνιπ. recalls ἐα. π., but instead of following up their assumed mental answer to his question, viz.: “we received the Spirit by a hearing of faith,” in which faith would have been the emphatic term, the apostle transfers the emphasis to πεμ, which his previous question took for granted, as an element in their early Christian experience. Apparently it seems to him that the antithesis “spirit” and “flesh” is at this point a more effective one for his purpose than “faith” and “works of law.” On the meaning of the words πεμ and σρ, see detached note, pp. 486 ff., especially the discussion of the use of these terms in antithesis, p. 494. πεμτ doubtless refers, as does τ πεμ above, to the Spirit of God, and σρίis used in a purely material sense, meaning “flesh” or “body,” as that which is circumcised. That the antithesis between πεμ and σρ is quite different in chap. 5 is no objection to this interpretation here; for in view of the fact that the precise aim of the judaisers was to induce the Galatians to be circumcised, a reference to the flesh would be naturally taken by them as referring to this, and no other meaning would be likely to occur to them. That σρίhas a relation to ἔγ νμυin that circumcision falls in the category of “works of law” is, of course, obvious, but σρίis not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that phrase or as denoting the natural powers of men apart from the divine Spirit, (1) because ἔγ νμυdoes not in the preceding sentence stand in antithesis with πεμ, and (2) because there is nothing in the context to suggest the introduction of this meaning of σρ. The absence of the article with both π. and σρ gives them a qualitative force, and heightens the contrast between the two possible agencies of salvation: (divine) Spirit, and (material) flesh. That πεμ is to be taken in a wider sense, as including both the divine Spirit which operates and the human spirit as the sphere of operation, is possible, but improbable in view of the nearness of τ πεμ with its express reference to the divine Spirit. πεμτ and σρίare doubtless instrumental datives, which is, however, no objection to taking the latter as referring to the flesh, in the material sense, for though the flesh is, strictly speaking, passive in circumcision, that aspect of the fact is a matter of indifference for the purpose of the argument.
On ἐαξ and ἐιε. cf. Php_1:6. ἐιε. occurs elsewhere in N. T. in the active (Rom_15:28, 2Co_7:1, 2Co_7:8:6, 2Co_7:11, Php_1:6, Heb_8:5, Heb_9:6) in the sense “to accomplish,” “to complete,” and in 1Pe_5:9 in the form ἐιεεσα, which is probably to be taken as a middle (see Bigg ad loc.). The Lxx use the word in active and passive, not in middle. But the existence of a middle usage in Greek writers (Plat. Php_27C; Xen. Mem. 4.8:8; Polyb. 1. 40:16; 2. 58:10; 5. 108:9 cited by Sief.) and the antithesis of ἐαξ a word of active force, favours taking ἐιε. also as a middle form with active sense, “to finish, to complete.”
4. τσῦαἐάεεεκ ε γ κὶεκ. “Did ye suffer so great things in vain? If it really is to be in vain.” A reference to the great experiences through which the Galatians had already passed in their life as Christians, and in effect an appeal to them not to let these experiences be of no avail. The word ἐάεεis, so far as our evidence enables us to decide, a neutral term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were painful or otherwise. ε γ κὶεκ shows that the question whether these experiences are to be in vain is still in doubt, depending on whether the Galatians actually yield to the persuasion of the judaisers or not. Cf., as illustrating the alternation of hope and fear in the apostle’s mind, 4:11, 20, 5:10. γ emphasises the contingency and suggests that the condition need not be fulfilled.
The verb πσωis in itself of neutral significance, “to experience,” ε πσενmeaning “to be well off,” “to receive benefits,” and κκςor κκ πσεν “to suffer ills”; yet πσωhas in usage so far a predilection for use in reference to ills that πσενalone signifies “to suffer” (ills), and to express the idea “to experience” (good) requires as a rule the addition of ε or an equivalent indication in the context. There is indeed nothing in the immediate limitations of the word in Jos. Ant. 3. 312 (15:1): τνθὸ ὑονσιμν ὅαπθνε ἐ ατῦ(i. e., θο) κὶπλκνεεγσῶ μτλβνε ἀάιτιπὸ ατνγνιτ, to indicate that it is employed in a good sense, but it is relieved of its ambiguity by the closely following πλκνεεγσῶ, if not, indeed, in part by ἐ ατῦ Since there is nothing in the context of the Galatian passage distinctly to suggest a beneficial meaning, the presumption is in favour of the more usual adverse meaning; and this would undoubtedly be the meaning conveyed to the Galatians if they had in fact been exposed to severe sufferings in connection with their acceptance of the gospel. On the other hand, if they had suffered no such things this meaning would evidently be excluded, and the word would refer to the benefits spoken of in vv. 1, 2. If we adopt the opinion that the letter was addressed to people of southern Galatia, we may find in Act_14:22 an intimation of persecutions or other like sufferings to which the present passage might refer; but no evidence that they were of sufficient severity to merit the term τσῦα If the churches were in northern Galatia we are unable to say whether they had suffered or not. For lack of knowledge of the circumstances, therefore, we must probably forego a decision of the question whether the experiences were pleasant or painful, and for this very reason understand the term πθτ in a neutral sense, or, more exactly, recognise that the term is for us ambiguous, though it could hardly have been so to Paul and the Galatians. This leaves the meaning of εκ also somewhat in doubt. If the τσῦαare the preaching of the gospel and the gift of the Spirit, then εκ means “without effect” (as in 4:11); if the reference is to persecutions it probably means “needlessly,” “without good cause” (Col_2:18), the implication being that if they give up the gospel which Paul preached they will have abandoned Christ (5:2-4) and might just as well have remained as they were (note the implication of 4:11); or if the persecutions were instigated by the Jews, that they might have escaped them by accepting Judaism, with its legalism, which they are now on the point of taking on.
Τσῦαin a large preponderance of cases means in the plural “so many” (see L.&S., Th.) and, with the possible exception of Joh_12:37, always has that meaning elsewhere in N. T. The meaning “so great” is, however, possible (see Preusch: s. v.), and in view of the fact that it is manifestly more natural for Paul to appeal to the greatness than simply to the number of the experiences of the Galatians is perhaps to be adopted here. So Wies. and Preusch.
Sief. finds in ε …εκ a reason for taking τσῦα…εκ not as a question but an exclamation, which is, of course, possible, but not necessary because of the conditional clause; for this is, in any case, not a true protasis of a preceding apodosis, but is to be mentally attached to some such supplied clause as, “which I am justified in saying.” The dictum that ε γ introduces an assumption that the writer believes to be true (Vigerus, ed. Hermann, p. 831, cited by Th.), is not regarded by recent authorities as true for classical Greek (see L.&S. sub. γ 3, Kü II 1, pp. 177 f.), and certainly does not correspond to the usage of N. T. writers. Where the assumption is one that is regarded as fulfilled (Rom_5:6, 2Co_5:3, Eph_4:21), it is the context that conveys the implication. In Col_1:23 there is no such implication, and perhaps not in Eph_3:2. See WM. p. 561, fn. 6, and Ell. Ltft. Sief. In the present passage the conditional clause must be understood without implication as to its fulfilment, since the context, indeed the whole letter, shows that while the apostle fears that the Galatians are about to turn back and so prove themselves τσῦαπθῖ εκ, yet he hoped, and was in this very appeal seeking, to avert this disaster. See esp. 4:11, 5:7-10.
5. ὁονἐιοηῶ ὑῖ τ πεμ κὶἐεγνδνμι ἐ ὑῖ ἐ ἔγννμυἢἐ ἀοςπσες “He therefore that supplied the Spirit richly to you, and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith?” This sentence in effect repeats the question of v. 2, and, like that, is doubtless to be understood as referring to the experiences of the Galatians in connection with and shortly after their conversion. The two participles, ἐιοηῶ and ἐεγν limited by one article evidently refer to the same person, and describe related activities affecting the same persons (ὑῖ …ἐ ὑῖ). It is obvious, therefore, that the two parts of the phrase are to be regarded as mutually interpretative. This, in turn, implies that the apostle has in mind chiefly the charismatic manifestation of the Spirit (see detached note on Πεμ and Σρ, I D III B. 1 (a), p. 490), which attests itself in δνμι and other kindred manifestations (see 1Co_12:10, 2Co_12:12, and for the use of the word δνμςMar_6:2, Luk_10:13, Act_2:22, etc.). Yet it must also be borne in mind that in the view of the apostle it was one Spirit that produced alike the outward χρσααand the inward moral fruit of the Spirit (chap. 5:22, 23), and hence that the latter though not included in δνμι is not necessarily excluded from the thought expressed by ἐιοηῶ ὑῖ τ πεμ; the words ἐεγν…ὑῖ may be narrower in scope than the preceding phrase. The whole phrase ὁον…ἐ ὑῖ is a designation of God (cf. chap. 4:6, 1Th_4:8, 2Co_1:22, and especially Rom_5:5, where the idea of abundant supply, here expressed by ἐιοηῶ, is conveyed by ἐκχτι θό is omitted and left to be supplied in thought as in 2:8 and probably in 1:15 also. δνμι referring to outward deeds, ἐ ὑῖ naturally takes the meaning “among you” (cf. on ἐ τῖ ἔνσν 1:16, 2:2); yet in view of the dative ὑῖ after ἐιοηῶ the δνμι must be supposed to have been wrought not principally by Paul but by the Galatians themselves, as 1Co_12:10, 1Co_12:28, 1Co_12:29 imply was the case among the Corinthians. 2Co_12:12 indeed suggests that such things were signs of the apostle, yet probably not in the sense that he only wrought them, but that the δνμι of the apostle were in some way more notable, or that they constituted a part of the evidence of his apostleship. The phrases ἐ ἔγννμυand ἐ ἀοςπσεςare, of course, to be taken as in the similar question in v. 2.
Ἐιο· comp. of ἐίand χργω expresses strongly the idea “to supply abundantly.” The simple verb means to defray the expense of providing a “chorus” at the public feast. In view of 2Pe_1:5, ἐιοηήαεἐ τ πσε ὑῶ τνἀεή, and Php_1:19 ἐιοηίςτῦπεμτς the preposition ἐίis to be interpreted not as directive (so Ell. Beet, Sief.), but, with Ltft., as additive and hence in effect intensive, and, therefore, as still further emphasising the idea of abundance. Cf. 2Co_9:10, Col_2:19, 2Pe_1:5, 2Pe_1:11. From these participles, ἐιο·and ἐεγ, the unexpressed verbs of the sentence are to be supplied, but they afford no clue to the tense of such verbs. To this the only guide is the fact that the apostle is still apparently speaking of the initial Christian experience of the Galatians and, in effect, repeating here the question of v. 2. This would suggest aorists here also, ἐεοήηεand ἐήγσ. The participles may be either general presents (BMT 123), in effect equivalent to nouns, “the supplier,” “the worker,” or progressive presents, and in that case participles of identical action, since they refer to the same action as the unexpressed principal verbs (BMT 120). The choice of the present tense rather than the aorist shows that the apostle has in mind an experience extended enough to be thought of as in progress, but not that it is in progress at the time of writing (Beet), or that the participle is an imperfect participle (Sief.; cf. BMT 127).
2. Argument from the faith of Abraham, refuting the contention of his opponents that only through conformity to law could men become sons of Abraham (3:6-9)
Passing abruptly, in a subordinate clause, from the early experience of the Galatians to the case of Abraham, the argument of the apostle revolves, from this point to the end of chap. 4, mainly around the subject of the blessing to Abraham and the conditions on which men may participate in it. In these verses he affirms at the outset his fundamental contention that Abraham was justified by faith, and that so also must all they be justified who would inherit the blessing promised to his seed.
6As “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” 7Know, therefore, that the men of faith, these are sons of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” 9So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful (believing) Abraham.
6. κθς“Ἀρὰ ἐίτυε τ θῷ κὶἐοίθ ατ εςδκισνν” “as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” The apostle assumes that to his question of v. 5 his readers will, in accordance with the historic facts, answer: ἐ ἀοςπσες To this answer he attaches a comparison between the faith of the Galatians and that of Abraham. The next two chapters, in which the argument revolves largely around Abraham and Abraham’s sons (see 3:7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 29, 4:22-31), show that this is no mere incidental illustration, but fills a vital place in his argument. The fact itself suggests, what an examination of the argument confirms, that Paul is here replying to an argument of his opponents. This argument, we may safely conjecture, was based on Gen. chaps. 12 and 17, especially 17:10-14, and most especially v. 14, and was to the effect that according to O. T. no one could participate in the blessings of God’s covenant with Abraham, and so in the messianic salvation that is inseparably associated with it, who was not circumcised. Neither the usage of δκισν (see detached note on Δκις Δκισν and Δκιω pp. 469 ff.), nor that of λγζτιες(see below), is decisive as between the two meanings: (1) “it was attributed to him as right conduct,” i. e., “he was accounted to have acted righteously,” and (2) “it was reckoned to him as ground of acceptance.” The general context, however, dealing predominantly with righteousness in the forensic aspect, acceptance with God, decides for the latter meaning. Against the argument probably advanced by his opponents in Galatia to the effect that under the covenant with Abraham no one is acceptable to God who is not circumcised (Gen_17:14; cf. Jub. chap. 15, esp. v. 26.), Paul points out that, according to the scripture, to Abraham himself it was his faith that was accounted as ground of acceptance.
Λγζμιis used in Greek writers frequently and in a variety of applications of the general meaning “to reckon, to calculate, to deem, to consider.” To express the idea “to credit or charge something to one’s account, to put it to his account,” the Greeks used λγ τν·(Dem. 264:16; Lev_7:8(18). According to Cremer, “to account a thing as being this or that, or having a certain value,” was expressed by λγ with two accusatives (Xen. Cyr. 1. 2:11, μα ἄφ τύωτ ἡέαλγζνα). In the Lxx λγζμιis the translation of חשַ, “to reckon,” “to account.” In N. T. it is used with much the same variation of meanings as in cl. Gr., and the idea “to credit or charge to one” is expressed in the same way. (Rom_4:4, Rom_4:6, 2Co_5:19; cf. Pro_17:28). “To reckon a thing or person to be this or that,” or “to account a thing as having a certain value,” is expressed as it is in the Lxx, who translate the Heb. חשַל by λγ ες The examples show that this form of expression may have either of the above-named meanings; “to think (one) to be this or that,” or “to count as having the value of this or that.” Thus in 1Sa_1:13: ἐοίαοατνἩὶεςμθοσν it clearly bears the former meaning; so also Rom_9:8, τ τκατςἐαγλα λγζτιεςσέμ. But in Act_19:27: κνυεε …ἱρνεςοθνλγσῆα, and in Rom_2:26: οχἡἀρβσί ατῦεςπρτμνλγσήεα, the latter is apparently the meaning. See also Gen_15:16, Psa_105 (106) 31, Isa_29:17, Isa_32:15, Isa_40:17, Lam_4:2, Hos_8:12, Wisd. 2:16, 3:17, 9:6, Jam_2:23. Even in this second class of cases, however, the word itself conveys no implication of a reckoning above or contrary to real value, as Cremer maintains. If this thought is conveyed it must be by the limitations of the word, not by the word itself. There being in the present passage no such limitations, the idea of estimation contrary to fact can not legitimately be discovered in the passage. Nor can it be imported into this passage from Rom_4:1-6, concerning which see in detached note on Δκισν, p. 470.
7. Γνσεεἄαὅιο ἐ πσες οτιυο εσνἈρά. “Know therefore that the men of faith, these are sons of Abraham.” πσι is here not specifically faith in Jesus Christ, but, as the absence of the article suggests, and the context with its reference on the one hand to Abraham’s faith in God and on the other to the faith of believers in Jesus clearly indicates, faith qualitatively thought of and in a sense broad enough to include both these forms of it. Here, as in Rom_3:31ff., Paul distinctly implies the essential oneness of faith, towards whatever expression or revelation of God it is directed. The preposition ἐ describes source, yet not source of being—they do not owe their existence to faith—but source of character and standing, existence after a certain manner. The expression ο ἐ πσες therefore, means “those who believe and whose standing and character are determined by that faith”; men of faith in the sense of those of whose life faith is the determinative factor. Here appears for the first time the expression “sons of Abraham,” which with its synonyme, “seed of Abraham,” is, as pointed out above, the centre of the argument in chaps. 3 and 4. ἄαmarks this statement as a logical consequence of the preceding. Abraham believed God, and was on that ground accepted by God; therefore, the sons of Abraham are men of faith. The sentence itself shows that “sons of Abraham” is not to be taken in a genealogical, but, in the broad use of the term, an ethical sense. The context indicates clearly that by it Paul means those who are heirs of the promise made to Abraham, and to be fulfilled to his seed (vv. 16, 29).
The unexpressed premise of this argument is that men become acceptable to God and heirs of the promise on the same basis on which Abraham himself was accepted. The ground of this premise in Paul’s mind was doubtless his conviction that God deals with all men on the same moral basis; in other words, that there is no respect of persons with God (chap. 2:6; cf. Rom_2:11, Rom_2:3:29, 30, Sir. 35:12). The expressed premise, derived from scripture, is that this basis was faith. Those who put forth the argument to which this was an answer would have accepted the apostle’s definition of sons (or seed) of Abraham, and would probably not have directly contradicted either the expressed or the unexpressed premise of his argument, but would practically have denied the expressed premise. They had probably reached their conclusion, that to be sons of Abraham men must be circumcised, by ignoring faith as the basis of Abraham’s justification, and appealing to the express assertion of scripture that the seed of Abraham must be circumcised, and that he who will not be circumcised shall be cut off from God’s people, having broken his covenant (Gen_17:9-14). The apostle in turn ignores their evidence, and appeals to Gen_15:6. In fact the whole passage, Gen. chaps. 12-17, furnishes a basis for both lines of argument. The difference between Paul and his opponent is not in that one appealed to scripture and the other rejected it, but that each selected his scripture according to the bent of his own prejudice or experience, and ignored that which was contrary to it.
Ramsay’s explanation of v. 7 as grounded in Greek customs and usages respecting adoption, and as meaning that because among the Gentiles is found the property of Abraham, viz., his faith, therefore they must be his sons, since only a son can inherit property, ignores all the evidence that Paul is here answering judaistic arguments, and is, therefore, moving in the atmosphere not of Greek but of Old Testament thought, and goes far afield to import into the passage the farfetched notion of faith as an inheritable property of Abraham. See his Com. on Gal. pp. 338 ff.
SONS OF ABRAHAM
It has been suggested above that in the employment of this phrase Paul is turning against his judaising opponents a weapon which they have first endeavoured to use against him, rather than himself introducing the term to the Galatians and founding on it an argument intended to appeal to their unprejudiced minds. It is in favour of this view that the evidence that has been left us does not indicate that it was Paul’s habit to commend Christ to the Gentiles either on O. T. grounds in general or in particular on the ground that through the acceptance of Jesus they would become members of the Jewish nation. See, e. g., the reports of his speeches in Acts, 1 Thes., esp. 1:2-10, 1Co_2:2, Php_3:2-9. There is, indeed, an approximation to this form of argument in Rom. chaps. 4 and 11. But in both these chapters the apostle is rebutting an argument put forth (or anticipated as likely to be put forth) from the side of the judaisers; chap. 4 contending that in the case of Abraham there is nothing to disprove, but on the contrary much to establish, the principle of the justification of uncircumcised Gentiles through faith, and chap. 11 maintaining that the purpose of God does not come to nought because of the rejection of Israel from its place of peculiar privilege, but finds fulfilment in the elect people, whether Jews or Gentiles. Moreover, precisely in respect to the Galatians do the testimonies of vv. 1-5 and 28, 26 of this chapter, and 5:2-4, indicate with special clearness that Paul’s preaching to them and their acceptance of Christ had been on an independently Christian basis—Christ crucified, faith in him, Christian baptism, the gift of the Spirit manifested in charismatic powers.
An examination of chaps. 3 and 4, moreover, reveals that Paul’s argument here is mainly of the nature of rebuttal. Thus the recurrent expressions, “sons of Abraham” (3:7), “blessed with faithful Abraham” (3:9), “blessing of Abraham” (3:14), “the covenant” and “the seed” (3:15-17), “Abraham’s seed” (3:29), all of which have their basis in Gen_12 and 17 (cf. Gen_12:3, Gen_17:2-10), and the express quotation in 3:8 of the words of Gen_12:3, all combine to indicate that the O. T. background of the discussion is largely that furnished by Gen. chaps. 12, 17. But if we turn to these chapters it is at once clear not only that they furnish no natural basis for a direct argument to the effect that the Gentiles may participate in the blessing of the Abrahamic salvation without first becoming attached to the race of his lineal descendants, but that they furnish the premises for a strong argument for the position which Paul is here combating. Thus in Gen_17:2-9 there is repeated mention of a covenant between God and Abraham, an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed throughout their generations, a covenant of blessing on God’s part and obligation on their part, which he and his seed after him are to keep throughout their generation, and it is said: “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you shall be circumcised” (v. 10) …and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt you and me” (v. 11). V. 12, moreover, states that this shall apply both to him that is born in the house and to him that is bought with money of any foreigner, and v. 14 declares that “the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people—he hath broken my covenant.” In 12:3, indeed, it is stated that in Abraham all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (so Paul interprets the sentence), yet there is nothing in this to intimate that they are to receive this blessing apart from a racial relation to Abraham, and chap. 17 seems to exclude such a thought. Indeed, it requires neither perversity nor rabbinic exegesis, but only a reasonable adherence to the obvious meaning of the passage, to find in these chapters the doctrine that God’s covenant of blessing was with Abraham and his seed, that none could be included in that covenant save those who being of the blood of Abraham were sealed as his seed by circumcision, or who being adopted into the nation from without also received the seal of circumcision, and that any who refused thus to receive circumcision could have no part in the people of God or the blessing to Abraham’s seed, since they had “broken God’s covenant.” “The covenant with Abraham,” “the seed of Abraham,” “blessed with faithful Abraham” (cf. Jub. 17:18, 19:8, 9), “in Abraham (with an emphasis on ‘in’) shall all the nations of the world be blessed”—these are apparently the premises and stock phrases of the judaiser’s argument—to which was doubtless added, as we can see from Gal_5:1 ff., the obvious inference that to enjoy these blessings one must be circumcised, as Gen_17:1 ff. says. To the judaiser, whose arguments Paul is answering, “seed of Abraham” meant, as to the Pharisaic author of the book of Jubilees (see chap. 15, esp. v. 26), the circumcised descendant of Abraham, with whom might also be included the circumcised proselyte; and to these he limited the blessing of the covenant with Abraham, and so in effect the blessing of God.
That all this would be directly contrary to Paul’s position is also evident (cf. 5:1-6). It is scarcely less evident that in this third chapter, confronted by substantially such an argument as this, he was aiming to refute it from the same source from which it was drawn. This he does by appeal to Gen_15:6