Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 3:14 - 3:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_3:14. Divine purpose in Christ’s redeeming us (the Jews) from the curse of the law; in order that the blessing promised to Abraham (justification; see on Gal_3:8) might be imparted in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (not: to all peoples, as Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, following the earlier expositors, take τὰ ἔθνη , in opposition to the context). So long, namely, as the curse of the law stood in force and consequently the Jews were still subject to this divine curse, the Gentiles could not be partakers of that blessing; for, according to that promise made to Abraham, it was implied in the preference which in the divine plan of salvation was granted to the Jews (Rom_1:17; Rom_15:8-9; Rom_3:1-2; Rom_9:1-5), that salvation should issue from them and pass over to the Gentiles (comp. Rom_15:27; Joh_4:22; Joh_11:52). Hence, when Christ by His atoning death redeemed the Jews from the curse of the divine law, God, in thus arranging His salvation, must necessarily have had the design that the Gentiles, who are expressly named in the promise made to Abraham (Gal_3:8), should share in the promised justification, and that not in some way through the law, as if they were to be subjected to this, but in Christ Jesus, through whom in fact the Jews had been made free from the curse of the law. The opposite of this liberation of the Jews could not exist in God’s purpose in regard to the Gentiles. Rückert takes a different view of the logical connection (as to which most expositors are silent), in the light of Eph_2:14 ff.: “So long as the law continued, an impenetrable wall of partition was set up between the Jewish and the Gentile world; … and just as long it was simply impossible that the blessing should pass over to the Gentiles.” But the context speaks not of the law itself as having been done away, but of the curse of the law, from which Jesus had redeemed the Jews; so that the idea of a partition-wall, formed by the law itself standing between Jew and Gentile, is not presented to the reader. Usteri thus states the connection: “Christ by His vicarious death has redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of the law, in order that (justification henceforth being to be attained through faith) the Gentiles may become partakers in the blessings of Abraham, since now there is required for justification a condition possible for all,—namely, faith.” Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact. But since the point of the possibility of the justification of the Gentiles is not dealt with in the context, this latter expedient is quite as arbitrarily resorted to, as is Schott’s intermingling of the natural law, against the threatenings of which faith alone yields protection (Rom_2:12 ff; Rom_3:9 ff.).
εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ] might reach to the Gentiles (Act_21:17; Act_25:15), that is, be imparted to them (Rev_16:2). Comp. on 2Co_8:13 f. Such was to be the course of the divine way of salvation, from Israel to the Gentiles. Observe, that Paul does not say καὶ εἰς τ . ἔθνη , as if the Gentiles were merely an accessory.
ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβρ .] the blessing already spoken of, which was pre-announced to Abraham (Gal_3:8), the opposite of the κατάρα ; not therefore life (Hofmann), the opposite of which would be θάνατος , but justification—by which is meant the benefit itself (Eph_1:3; Rom_15:29), and not the mere promise of it (Schott).
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ] so that this reception of the blessing depends, and is founded, on Christ (on His redeeming death). The διὰ τῆς πίστεως which follows expresses the matter from the point of view of the subjective medium, whilst ἐν Χριστῷ presents the objective state of the case—the two elements corresponding to each other at the close of the two sentences of purpose.
ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ . τ . λ .] cannot be subordinated to the previous sentence of purpose (Rückert), for it contains no benefit specially accruing to the Gentiles (Paul must have written λάβωσι , which Chrysostom actually read—evidently an alteration arising from misunderstanding). It is parallel to the first sentence of purpose by way of climax: comp. Rom_7:13; 2Co_9:3; Eph_6:19 f. After Paul had expressed the blessed aim which the redeeming death of Christ had in reference to the Gentiles,—namely, that they should become partakers of the εὐλογία of Abraham,—he raises his glance still higher, and sees the reception also of the Holy Spirit (the consequence of justification) as an aim of that redeeming death; but he cannot again express himself in the third person, because, after the justification of the Jews had been spoken of in Gal_3:13 and the justification of the Gentiles in Gal_3:14 ( ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη … Ἰησοῦ ), the statement now concerns the justified generally, Jews and Gentiles without distinction: hence the first person, λάβωμεν , is used, the subject of which must be the Christians, and not the Jewish Christians only (Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others). This by no means accidental emergence of the first person, after τὰ ἔθνη had been previously spoken of in the third, is incompatible with our taking the reception of the Spirit as part of the εὐλογία (Wieseler), or as essentially identical with it (Hofmann).
τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεῦματος ] τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν λαμβάνειν means to become partakers in the realization of the promise (Heb_10:36; Luk_24:49; Act_1:4); but τοῦ πνεύματος may be either the genitive of the subject (that which is promised by the Spirit) or of the object (the promised Spirit). The latter interpretation (comp. Act_2:33; Eph_1:13) is the usual and correct one.[131] For if (with Winer) we should explain it, “bona illa, quae a divino Spiritu promissa sunt” (Luk_24:49; Act_1:4), then, in conformity with the context, this expression must refer back to Gal_3:8 ( προϊδοῦσα ἡ γραφή κ . τ . λ . προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβρ . κ . τ . λ .); and to this the first person λάβωμεν would not be suitable, as Paul referred that promise given to Abraham in the Scripture (by the Holy Spirit) to the Gentiles. And if ΤῊΝ ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς were essentially the same as the ΕὐΛΟΓΊΑ ΤΟῦ ἈΒΡ ., it would be entirely devoid of the explanatory character of an epexegesis.
διὰ τ . πίστ .] For faith is the causa apprehendens both of justification and of the reception of the Spirit; comp. Gal_3:2-5; Gal_5:5.
[131] So that τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is to be referred, to the O. T. promise of the communication of the Holy Spirit (Joel 3; Act_2:16),—a promise well known to all the apostle’s readers. Hilgenfeld incorrectly holds that “the promise given to Abraham is directly designated as an ἐπαγγελία τοῦ πνεύματος (a promise, the substance of which is the πνεῦμα ).”