Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 3:16 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_3:16. This verse is usually considered as minor proposition to Gal_3:15, so that Gal_3:15-17 contain a complete syllogism, which is, however, interrupted by the exegetical gloss οὐ λέγει κ . τ . λ ., and is then resumed by τοῦτο δὲ λέγω in Gal_3:17 (see Morus, Koppe, Rückert, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld). But against this view it may be urged, (1) that the minor proposition in Gal_3:16 must necessarily, in a logical point of view,—as corresponding to the emphatic ὅμως ἀνθρώπου in Gal_3:15,—bring into prominence the divine character of the promises, and must have been expressed in some such form as Θεὸς δὲ τῷ Ἀβρ .; and (2) that the explanation as to καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ , so carefully and emphatically brought in (not merely “allusive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless and irrelevant, because it would be devoid of all reference to and influence on the argument. The train of ideas is really as follows (comp. also Wieseler):
After Paul has stated in Gal_3:15 that even a man’s legally valid covenant is not invalidated or provided with additions by any one, he cannot immediately link on the conclusion intended to be deduced from this, viz. that a valid covenant of God is not annulled by the law coming afterwards; but he must first bring forward the circumstance which, in the case in question, has an essential bearing on this proof,—that the promises under discussion were issued not to Abraham only, but at the same time to his descendants also, that is, to Christ. From this essential circumstance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a mere temporary contract, simply made to last up to the time of the law. Accordingly, the purport of Gal_3:15-17 is this: “Even a man’s covenant legally completed remains uncancelled and without addition (Gal_3:15). But the circumstance which conditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence deduced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to Abraham, but also to his seed, by which, as is clear from the singular τῷ σπέρματι , is meant Christ (Gal_3:16). And now—to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have said in Gal_3:15-16—what I mean is this: A covenant previously made with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by the law, which came into existence so long afterwards” (Gal_3:17).
τῷ δὲ Ἀβρ . ἐῤῥέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι κ . τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ ] The emphasis is laid on καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ , the point which is here brought into prominence as the further specific foundation of the proof to be adduced. This element essential to the proof lies in the destination of Christ as the organ of fulfilment; in the case of a promise which had been given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ, the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an ἀθέτησις by the law. Comp. also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 204. The passage of the O.T. to which Paul refers in καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ , is considered by most expositors, following Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22) and Chrysostom, to be Gen_22:18 : ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν τῷ σπέρματί σου πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς . But, from the words οὐ λέγει · καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ . τ . λ . which follow, it is evident that Paul was thinking of a passage in which καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου is expressly written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the passages Gen_13:15; Gen_17:8, are rather to be assumed as those referred to,—a view confirmed by the expression κληρονομία in Gal_3:18.[134] Comp. Rom_4:13.
ἐῤῥέθησαν [135]] they were spoken, that is, given, as some min., Eusebius and Theophylact, actually read ἐδόθησαν . The datives simply state to whom the promises were spoken, not: in reference to whom (so Matthias),—an interpretation which was the less likely to occur to the reader, well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise was spoken directly to Abraham, who at the same time represented his σπέρμα .
αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι ] in the plural: for the promise in question was given on several occasions and under various modifications, even as regards the contents; and indeed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise different from that mentioned above in Gal_3:8. In καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ he finds that Christ is meant; hence he adds the following gloss (Midrasch): οὐ λέγει · καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ . τ . λ ., in which the singular form of the expression is asserted by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn that only one descendant (not: only one class of descendants, namely the spiritual children of Abraham, as, following Augustine, Cameron and others, Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. T. im neuen T. p. 65 ff. ed. 6, also Jatho, hold) is intended, namely Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical (Surenhusius, καταλλ . p. 84 f.; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 736; Döpke, Hermeneut. I. p. 176 ff.), and without objective force as a proof, is evident from the fact that in the original text æÆøÇò is written, and this, in every passage in the O.T. where it expresses the idea of progenies, is used in the singular (in 1Sa_8:15, æÇøÀòÅéëÆí are segetes vestrae), whether the posterity consists of many or of one only (Gen_4:25; 1Sa_1:11; Targ. Psa_18:26, where Isaac is called Abraham’s æøò [136]). Also the later Hebrew and Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies (see Geiger in the Zeitschr. d. morgenl. Gesellsch. 1858, p. 307 ff.) does not depend, any more than the Greek use of σπέρματα (Soph. O.C. 606. 1277; O.R. 1246; Aesch. Eum. 909), on the circumstance that, in contradistinction, the singular is to be understood ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός . Comp, 4Ma_18:1 : ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλῖται , πείθεσθε τῷ νόμῳ τούτῳ . The classical use of αἵματα is analogous (comp. on Joh_1:13). Moreover, the original sense of these promises, and also the τῷ σπέρματι of the LXX., undoubtedly apply to the posterity of Abraham generally: hence it is only in so far as Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and crown of this series of descendants, that the promises were spoken to Him; but to discover this reference in the singular καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου was a mere feat of the rabbinical subtlety, which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful culture as a characteristic element of his national training, without detriment to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to the revelations which had been vouchsafed to him. Every attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed himself any rabbinical interpretation of this sort (see among recent expositors, particularly Philippi in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1855, p. 519 ff.: comp. also Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 50 f.; Tholuck, l.c., and Hofmann) is incompatible with the language itself, and conflicts with the express ὅς ἐστι Χριστός ; which clearly shows that we are not to understand σπερμάτων with ἐπὶ πολλῶν , nor σπέρματος with ἐφʼ ἑνός (Hofmann, Buhl), but that the contrast between many persons and one person is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which the gloss of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of this gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises in question, not on the singular τῷ σπέρματι .
οὐ λέγει ] sc. ΘΕΌς , which is derived from the historical reference of the previous ἘῤῬΈΘΗΣΑΝ , so well known to the reader. Comp. Eph_4:8; Eph_5:14.
Ὡς ἘΠῚ ΠΟΛΛῶΝ ] as referring to many individuals, in such a manner that He intends and desires to express a plurality of persons. On ἐπί , upon, that is, in reference to, with the genitive along with verbs of speaking, see Heindorf, ad Plat. Charm, p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248; Ast. Lex. Plat. I. p. 767.
ὅς ἐστι Χριστός ] which σπέρμα , denoting a single individual, is Christ. The feebly attested reading Ὅ is a mistaken grammatical alteration; for how often does the gender of the relative correspond by attraction to the predicative substantive! See Kühner, II. p. 505. ΧΡΙΣΤΌς is the personal Christ Jesus, not, as some, following Irenaeus (Haer. v. 32. 2) and Augustine (ad iii. 29, Opp. IV. p. 384), have explained it: Christ and His church (Beza, Gomarus, Crell, Drusius, Hammond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, Olshausen, Philippi l.c., Hofmann), or the church alone (Calvin, Clericus, Bengel, Ernesti, Döderlein, Nösselt, and others). Such a mystical sense of ΧΡΙΣΤΌς must necessarily have been suggested by the context (as in 1Co_12:12); here, however, the very contrast between ΠΟΛΛῶΝ and ἙΝΌς is decidedly against it. See also Gal_3:19; Gal_3:22; Gal_3:24; Gal_3:27-28. Gal_3:29 also is against, and not in favour of, this explanation; because the inference of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is the ΣΠΈΡΜΑ ΤΟῦ ἈΒΡ . (see on Gal_3:29). The whole explanation is a very superfluous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which (especially in the case of Tholuck and Hofmann) appears in striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of the passage.[137] It is not, however, Christ in His pre-human existence, in so far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the patriarchs (1Co_10:1 ff.), who is here referred to, because it is only as the λόγος ἔνσαρκος that He can be the descendant of Abraham (Mat_1:1; Rom_1:3). Comp. Gal_3:19.
[134] The correct view is found even in Origen, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom_4:4, Opp. iv. p. 532: “Ipse enim (apostolus) haec de Christo dicta esse interpretatur, cum dixit: ‘Scriptum est, tibi dabo terram hanc et semini tuo. Non dixit: et seminibus, tanquam in multis, sed semini tuo, tanquam in uno, qui est Christus.’ ” Comp. also p. 618, and Homil. 9 in Genes. Opp. II. p. 85; and earlier, Irenaeus, Haer. v. 32. 2; later, especially Jerome.
[135] As to this form, which has preponderant attestation (Lachm., Tisch.), comp. on Rom_9:12; Kühner, I. p. 810, ed. 2.
[136] In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen_3:15, the LXX. translators have referred σπέρμα to an individual (to a son); for they translate, αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν . But it does not thence follow that this subject was the Messiah, to whom the éÀùÑåÌôÀêÈ , correctly understood by the LXX., but wrongly by the Vulgate (conteret), is not suitable. The Messianic reference of the passage lies in the enmity against the serpent here established as the expression of a moral idea, the final victorious issue of which was the subject-matter of the Messianic hope, and was brought about through the work of the Messiah. Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 26 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 160 f.; also Schultz, alttest, Theol. I. p. 466 f.
[137] Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul desired to show that the promises could not possibly extend to “the posterity of Abraham in every sense,” and that consequently the natural posterity was not included; that the singular points rather to a definite posterity, namely the believing. The latter are taken along with Christ as an unity, and, partly as the spiritual successors of the patriarch, partly in their oneness with the great Scion proceeding from his family, they constitute the descendants of Abraham. But in this case Paul, instead of ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν , must at least have written ὡς ἐπὶ πάντων ; instead of ὡς ἐφʼ ἑνός , ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνός ; and instead of ὅς ἐστι Χριστός , he must have written ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία σὺν Χριστῷ .—According to Hofmann, in loc. (not quite the same in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of Gen_4:25 and thinking in τοῖς σπέρμασιν of several posterities by the side of each other, lays stress on the oneness of Abraham’s posterity expressed in the singular, the expression in the singular serving him only as the shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testified to by Scripture generally; but, on the other hand, he has, by means of estimating this unit of posterity in the light of the history of redemption, been able, and indeed obliged, to interpret τῷ σπέρματί σου as referring to Christ, the promised Saviour, without thereby maintaining that this expression in the singular could signify only an individual, and not a race of many members. But in this way everything which we are expected to read in the plain words is imported into them, and artificially imposed upon them, by the expositor. Besides, in Gen_4:25 σπέρμα ἕτερον means nothing more than another son.