Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 1:4 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_1:4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition of their error; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. Gal_2:20, Gal_3:13 ff. “See how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss.
τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν ] that is, who did not withhold ( ἐφείσατο , Rom_8:32), but surrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.[16] This special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian consciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the addition περὶ τ . ἁμαρτ . ἡμ . Comp. Mat_20:28; Eph_5:25; Tit_2:14; 1Ti_2:6; 1Ma_6:44; and Wetstein in loc.
περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτ . ἡμ .] in respect of our sins (Rom_8:3), on account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom_3:23 ff.; Gal_3:12 ff. In essential sense περί is not different from ὑπέρ (1Pe_3:18; Mat_26:28; Heb_10:26; Heb_13:11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Alc. 176, comp. 701; Hom. Il. xii. 243, comp. i. 444; see Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaefer, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 188, Goth.), and the idea of satisfaction is implied, not in the signification of the preposition, but in the whole nature of the case. Hom. Il. i. 444: Φοίβῳ … ἑκατόμβην ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν (for the benefit of the Danai), ὄφρʼ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα . As to περί and ὑπέρ in respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never περί ) is always used by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see further on 1Co_1:13; 1Co_15:3.
ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς κ . τ . λ .] End, which that self-surrender was to attain. The ἐνεστὼς αἰών is usually understood as equivalent to ὁ αἰὼν οὖτος , ὁ νῦν αἰών . Certainly in practical meaning ἐνεστώς may denote present (hence in the grammarians, ὁ ἐνεστὼς χρόνος , tempus praesens), but always only with the definite reference suggested by the literal signification, setting in, that is, in the course of entrance, that which has already begun. So not merely in passages such as Dem. 255. 9, 1466. 21; Herodian, ii. 2. 3; Polyb. i. 75. 2; 3 Esd. 5:47, 9:6; 3Ma_1:16, but also in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 878; Dinarch. i. 93; Polyb. i. 83. 2, i. 60. 9, vii. 5. 4; 2Ma_3:17; 2Ma_6:9; comp. Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 350. So also universally in the N.T., Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_7:26; 2Th_2:2 (comp. 2Ti_3:1; Heb_9:9). Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be quite unsuitable to designate the αἰὼν οὗτος , because the latter is not an aeon just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until the παρουσία ; and as elsewhere Paul always describes this present αἰών as the αἰὼν οὗτος (Rom_12:2; 1Co_1:20; and frequently: comp. ὁ νῦν αἰών , 1Ti_6:17; 2Ti_4:10; Tit_2:12), we must explain it as the period of time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already begun, that is, the time immediately preceding the παρουσία , so that the αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is the last part of the αἰὼν οὗτος . This αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is not only very full of sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on 1Co_7:26), to which, however, the ethical πονηρός in our passage does not refer; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle developes great power and audacity (2Th_2:3 ff.; 1Ti_4:1 ff.; 2Ti_3:1 ff.; 2Pe_3:3; Jud_1:18; 1Jn_2:18; Mat_24:10-12). Comp. Usteri, l.c. p. 348 ff.; Lücke and Huther on 1Jn_2:18. On that account this period of time is pre-eminently ὁ αἰὼν πονηρός . With his idea of the nearness of the παρουσία , Paul conceived this period as having then already begun (comp. 2Th_2:7), although its full development was still in reserve (2Th_2:8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated ὁ αἰὼν ἐνεστώς which in other places is called καιρὸς ἔσχατος (1Pe_1:5), ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (Act_2:17; 2Ti_3:1), ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1Jn_2:18), and in Rabbinic ÷Åõ or ñå ̇ ó or àÇçÂøÄéú äÇéÌÈîÄéí (Isa_2:2; Jer_23:20; Mic_4:1). See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2Ti_3:1. Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellowship with it, inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out, and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life in the Spirit—was brought about in them (Rom_6:8). Christians have become objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that ΑἸῺΝ ΠΟΝΗΡΌς , so that, although living in this ΑἸΏΝ , they yet have nothing in common with its ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑ .[17] Comp. Barnabas, Ep. 10, where the righteous man, walking in this world, τὸν ἅγιον αἰῶνα ἐκδέχεται . The ἘΞΈΛΗΤΑΙ , moreover, has the emphasis and is accordingly prefixed. For how antagonistic to this separation, designed by Christ, was the fellowship with the αἰὼν πονηρός into which the readers had relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers!
Observe, moreover, that the ΑἸῺΝ ΠΟΝΗΡΌς forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat the article before ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ (as Matthias contends); see Krüger, § 57. 2. 3.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸ ΘΈΛΗΜΑ Κ . Τ . Λ .] strengthens the weight of the ὍΠΩς ἘΞΈΛΗΤΑΙ Κ . Τ . Λ ., to which it belongs. Comp. Eph_1:4 f.; Col_1:13 f. The salvation was willed by God, to whom Christ was obedient (Php_2:8); the reference of κατὰ τ . θελ . κ . τ . λ . to the whole sentence from ΤΟῦ ΔΌΝΤΟς onwards (Bengel, Wieseler, probably also Hofmann) is less simple, and unnecessary. The connection with ΠΡΟΝΗΡΟῦ (Matthias) would only be possible, if the latter were predicative, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical.
Τ . ΘΕΟῦ Κ . ΠΑΤΡ . ἩΜ .] of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Php_4:20; 1Th_1:3; 1Th_3:11; 1Th_3:13. As to the ΚΑΊ , comp. on 1Co_15:24; Eph_1:3 : from the latter passage it must not be concluded that ἩΜῶΝ belongs also to ΘΕΟῦ (Hofmann). The more definite designation Κ . ΠΑΤΡ . ἩΜῶΝ conveys the motive of the θέλημα , love.
[16] Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν . For instances from Greek authors of ἔδωκεν ἑαυτόν , see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 348.
[17] It is therefore self-evident how unjust is the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s death to this short period of transition. This the apostle in no way does, but he portrays redemption concretely, displaying the whole importance and greatness of its salvation by the force of strongest contrast. This remark also applies to Wieseler’s objection.