Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 3:15 - 3:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_3:15.[132] Ἀδελφοι ] Expressive of loving urgency, and conciliating with reference to the instruction which follows. Comp. Rom_10:1. How entirely different was it in Gal_3:1! Now the tone of feeling is softened.
ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΛΈΓΩ ] not to be placed in a parenthesis (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others), points to what follows—to that which he is just about to say in proof of the immutability of a divine διαθήκη . The analogy to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view; for the apostle does not wish to adduce it from his higher standpoint as one enlightened by the Spirit, according to the measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but he wishes thus to accommodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of adducing examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible to his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin thinks). Comp. ἀνθρωπείως and ἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝΩς (Dem. 639. 24, 1122. 2; Rom_6:19). See generally on Rom_3:5; 1Co_9:8; and van Hengel, Annot. p. 211 f.
ὅμως ] yet. The logical position would be before οὐδείς . A ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ , although human, no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the ὅμως (which here intimates a conclusion à minori) is not unfrequent in classical authors, and again occurs in the case of Paul, 1Co_14:7. See on this passage. There is therefore all the less reason for writing it ὁμῶς , in like manner (Morus, Rosenmüller, Jatho), which would be unsuitable, since that which is to be illustrated by the comparison only follows (at Gal_3:17). Rückert (so also Olshausen and Windischmann) takes it in antithetical reference to κατὰ ἄνθρ . λέγω : “I desire to keep only to human relations; nevertheless,” etc. This would be an illogical antithesis. Others, contrary to linguistic usage, make it mean yet even (Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies), or quin imo (Wolf), and the like.
κεκυρωμένην ] ratified, made legally valid, Gen_23:20; 4Ma_7:9; Dem. 485. 13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620 E; Polyb. v. 49. 6; Andoc. de myst. § 84, p. 11; comp. on 2Co_2:8.
διαθήκην ] not testament (Heb_9:16 f.), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many others, including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to the context; nor, in general, voluntary ordainment, arrangement (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann: “destination as to anything, which we apply for one’s benefit,” Holsten, following earlier expositors); but in the solemn biblical signification of áÌÀøÄéú , covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others; also Ewald: “contract”), as in Gal_4:24 and all Pauline passages. The emphatic prefixing of ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ points to the majus, the διαθήκη of God; and God had entered into a covenant with Abraham, by giving him the promises (Gal_3:17. Comp. Gen_17:7; Exo_2:24; Lev_26:42; Luk_1:72; Act_3:25; 2Ma_1:2; Sir_44:20; Sir_44:22). The singular ( ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ ) is not opposed to this view; on the contrary, since ἈΝΘΡΏΠΟΥ ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ is put as analogue of the ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ of God (which God has established), there could, in accordance with this latter, be only one contracting party designated: a ratified covenant, which a man has established. The ratification, as likewise follows from the ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗ of God, is not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third party; but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal conclusion of the parties themselves who make the agreement with one another.
οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἣ ἐπιδιατ .] viz. no third party. Such an interference would indeed be possible in itself, and not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as Hofmann objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, in the general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be left unnoticed. On ἈΘΕΤΕῖΝ ΔΙΑΘΉΚ ., to do away a covenant, irritum facere, comp. 1Ma_15:27; 2Ma_13:25; Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 8. 9. That οὐδείς is not the same subject as ἀνθρώπου (Holsten[133]), is evident both from the expression in itself, and from the application in Gal_3:17, where the ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ corresponds to the ἀνθρώπου and the (personified) νόμος , which comes in as a third person, to the οὐδείς .
ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται ] or adds further stipulations thereto, which were not contained in the covenant. That the ἐπί in the word ἐπιδιατάσσεται (not occurring elsewhere) denotes contra (Schott), is inconsistent with the analogy of ἐπιδιατίθημι , ἐπιδιαγινώσκω , ἐπιδιακρίνω , and so forth (comp. Joseph. Bell. ii. 2. 3, ἀξιῶν τῆς ἐπιδιαθήκης τὴν διαθήκην εἶναι κυριωτέραν , Antt. xvii. 9. 4); in that case ἀντιδιατάσσεται must have been used. Erasmus, Winer, Hauck, and others wish at least to define the nature of the additions referred to as coming into conflict with the will of the author of the διαθήκη or changing it; but this is arbitrary. The words merely, affirm: no one prescribes any addition thereto; this is altogether against the general rule of law, let the additions be what they may.
Chrysostom aptly remarks: μὴ τολμᾶ τις ἀνατρέψαι μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὼν ἢ προσθεῖναι τι , τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν · ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται .
[132] As to vv. 15–22, see Hauck in Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 512 ff.; Matthias, d. Abschn. d. Gal. Br. iii. 15–22, Cassel, 1866. As to vv. 15–29, see Buhl, in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 1 ff.
[133] “Yet in the sphere of the human no one cancels his voluntary disposition, which has become legally valid.” Matthies also identifies the subject in οὐδείς with the founder of the διαθήκη .