Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 3:11 - 3:11
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
f
Gal_3:11 f. Δέ ] carrying on the argument. After Paul in Gal_3:10 has proved the participation of believers in the blessing of Abraham by the argumentum e contrario, that those who are of the law are under curse, it is his object now—in order to complete the doctrinal explanation begun in Gal_3:6 on the basis of Scripture—to show, on the same basis, the only way of justification, and that (a) negatively: it is not by the way of the law that man becomes righteous (Gal_3:11-12), and (b) positively: Christ has made us free from the curse of the law (Gal_3:13). Observe (in opposition to Wieseler’s objection) that in δικαιοῦται παρὰ τ . Θεῷ , the being justified in spite of the curse, and consequently the becoming free from it, is clearly and necessarily implied by the context preceding (Gal_3:10) and following (Gal_3:13).
Gal_3:11-12 contain a complete syllogism; ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστ . ζήσεται forming the major proposition, Gal_3:12 the minor, and ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ the conclusion. The subtle objections of Hofmann are refuted not only by the combination ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως , but also by the necessary inner correlation of δικαιοσύνη and ζωή , which are put as reciprocal.
The first ὅτι is declaratory, and the second causal: “but that through the law no one …, is evident, because,” etc. Homberg and Flatt take them conversely: “But because through the law no one …, it is evident that,” etc. The circumstance that δῆλον ὅτι must mean it is evident, that (Flatt), comp. 1Co_15:27, is not to be adduced as favouring the latter view; for in our interpretation also it has this meaning, only ὅτι is made to precede (see Kühner, II. p. 626). Against it, on the other hand, we may urge, that Gal_3:12 would be quite superfluous and irrelevant to the argument, and also that ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται , as a well-known aphorism, of Scripture, is far more fitly employed to prove than to be itself proved. Far better is the view of Bengel, who likewise is not inclined to separate δῆλον ὅτι : “Quod attinet ad id (the former ὅτι thus being equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο , ὅτι , 2Co_1:18; 2Co_11:10; Joh_2:18; Joh_9:17), quod in lege nemo justificetur coram Deo, id sane certum est,” etc. The usual view is, however, more natural[125] and more emphatic. Hofmann, in loc. and Schriftbew. I. p. 615 f., wishes to take Gal_3:11-12 as protasis to Gal_3:13-14; according to his view, ὅτι specifies the cause, and δῆλον (or δηλονότι ) only introduces the illustration of this cause. But we thus get a long parenthetically involved period, differing from the whole context, in which Paul expresses himself only in short sentences without periodic complication; moreover, the well-known use of δηλονότι as namely (see especially Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p. 106; Bast, Palaeogr. p. 804) does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., although the opportunities for its use were very frequent (1Co_15:27, 1Ti_6:7, are wrongly adduced); further, it is à priori very improbable that the two important quotations in Gal_3:11-12 should be destined merely for incidental illustration (comp. Rom_1:17); and lastly, there would result an awkward thought, as if, namely, Christ had been moved to His work of redemption, in the death on the cross, by the reflection contained in Gal_3:11-12 (comp., on the contrary, Gal_4:3-5; Rom_8:3; 2Co_5:21).
ἐν νόμῳ ] not: by observance of the law, which would be ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (Erasmus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, and others), but: through the law, in so far, namely, as the law is an institution which does not cancel the curse so pronounced and procure justification; for otherwise faith must have been its principle, which is not the case (see the sequel). The law is consequently, in principle, not the means by the use of which a man can attain to justification. On this ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (Rom_8:3), comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 68; Neander, II. p. 658 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 286 f. Χριστός in Gal_3:13 corresponds to the emphatically prefixed ἐν νόμῳ (what by the law is not done, Christ has effected); therefore ἐν is not to be understood (with Rückert, de Wette, and others) as: in, in the condition of Judaism, or in the sense of the rule (Wieseler), but as: through, by means of.
παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ ] judice Deo, opposed to the judgment of men. Comp. Rom_2:13; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 492],
ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται ] an aphorism of Scripture well known to the readers, which therefore did not need any formula of quotation (D* E F G, Syr. Erp. It., have γέγραπται γάρ before ὅτι , F G also omitting δῆλον ). Comp. 1Co_15:27; Rom_9:7; and van Hengel in loc. The passage is from Hab_2:4, according to the LXX. ( ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστ . μου ζήσεται , or, according to A.: ὁ δὲ δίκ . μου ἐκ π . μ . ζ .), where it is said: The righteous ( öÇãÌÄé÷ ) shall through his fidelity (towards God) become partaker of (theocratic) life-blessedness. The apostle, glancing back from the Messianic fulfilment of this saying—which he had everywhere in view, and experienced most deeply in his own consciousness—to the Messianic destination of it, recognises as its prophetic sense: “He who is righteous through faith (in Christ) shall obtain (Messianic) life.” Comp. on Rom_1:17. In so doing Paul, following the LXX., which very often renders àîåðä by πίστις , had the more reason for retaining this word, because the faithful self-surrender to God (to His promise and grace) is the fundamental essence of faith in Christ; and he might join ἐκ πίστεως to ὁ δίκαιος , because the life ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς presupposes no other righteousness than that ἐκ πίστεως . Here also, as in Rom. l.c. (otherwise in Heb_10:38), the words Ὁ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς are to be connected (Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Pareus, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Michaelis, Semler, Morus, Griesbach, Knapp, Rückert, Winer, Gramm. p. 129 [E. T. 170], Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, Hoelemann, and others), and not ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (so most of the older expositors, following Jerome and Augustine; also Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, Ewald, Holsten, Hofmann, Matthias): for Paul desires to point out the cause of the righteousness, and not that of the life of the righteous, although this has the same cause; and in Gal_3:12, Ὁ ΠΟΙΉΣΑς ΑὐΤΆ stands in contrast not to Ὁ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς merely, but to Ὁ ΔΊΚΑΙΟς ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς . Compare, besides, Hoelemann, l.c. p. 41 f. Paul, however, did not write ὁ ἐκ πίστεως δίκαιος or δίκαιος ὁ ἐκ πίστεως , because this important saying was well known and sanctioned by usage in the order of the words given by the LXX.; so that he involuntarily abstained from the freedom of dealing elsewhere manifested by him in quoting from Scripture. The grammatical correctness of the junction of ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤ . to ΔΊΚΑΙΟς is evident from the fact that the phrase ΔΙΚΑΙΟῦΣΘΑΙ ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤ . is used; comp. Gal_3:8.
[125] For if we take Bengel’s explanation, the δῆλον will not suit well the following words, because they form an utterance of Scripture. We should expect possibly γέγραπται , so that then the first ὅτι would have to be understood as: ἵνα εἰδῆτε , ὅτι (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 59 ff.; Schaef. ad Dem. II. p. 71).