Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 3:21 - 3:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_3:21. ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν ;] οὖν , the reference of which is differently explained according to the different interpretations of Gal_3:20, draws an inference, not from the definition of the object of the law in Gal_3:19 (Castalio, Luther, Gomarus, Pareus, Estius, Bengel, and others, including Lücke, Olshausen, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann, Stölting), but from Gal_3:20, which is not arbitrarily to be set aside, or to be treated merely as an appendage of Gal_3:19.[163] The law, namely, which was given through a mediator, and therefore essentially otherwise than the promise, might thereby appear to introduce on the part of God another way of granting the Messianic salvation than the promises, and consequently to be opposed to the latter. See the fuller statement at Gal_3:20.
κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν ] See Gal_3:8; Gal_3:16. The ΚΑΤΆ is the usual contra, in opposition, to. Matthias incorrectly explains it: “Is it included under the idea of the promises?” Since the simple ἐστί —and not, possibly, ΤΆΣΣΕΤΑΙ (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 272)—is to be supplied, the expression would be wholly without the sanction of usage. Moreover, looking to the specific difference in the ideas of the two things, Paul could not have asked such a question at all.
εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος κ . τ . λ .] ground assigned for the ΜῊ ΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ , and therefore proof that it would be incorrect to conclude from Gal_3:20 that the law was opposed to the promises. For if it had been opposed to the promises, the law must have been in a position to procure life;[164] and if this were so, then would righteousness actually be from the law,[165] which, according to the Scriptures, cannot be the case (Gal_3:22).
νόμος ] just as in the whole context: the Mosaic law, although without the article, as in ii. 21, iii. 11, 18; Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 152].
ὁ δυνάμ . ζωοπ .] The article marks off the definite quality which, in the words εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος , is conceived by the lawgiver as belonging to the law (Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 167]; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 7, 13): as that which is able to give life; and this is the point of this conditional sentence.
ζωοποιῆσαι ] “Hoc verbo praesupponitur mors peccatori intentata,” Bengel. The ζωή , however, which the law is not able to furnish, is not the being alive morally (Winer, Rückert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, Hofmann, Buhl, and others, following older expositors), but, in harmony with the context, the everlasting Messianic life (see Käuffer, de bibl. ζωῆς αἰωνίου notione, p. 75), as is evident from Gal_3:18 ( εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία ) and from Gal_3:22. Comp. also 2Co_3:6. The moral quickening is presupposed in this ζωοποιῆσαι . The law, in itself good and holy, could not subdue the dominion of the principle of sin in man (Rom_8:3), but rather necessarily served to promote this dominion (see on Gal_3:19), and was therefore unable to bring about the eternal life which was dependent on obedience to the law (Gal_3:12): given unto life, it was found unto death, Rom_7:10. Paul never uses ζωοποιεῖν of the moral quickening, nor συζωοποιεῖν either (Eph_2:5; Col_2:13). The ζεή is the eternal life which is manifested at the Parousia (Col_3:3 f.), and therefore in reality the κληρονομία (Gal_3:18; Gal_3:29). Comp. ζήσεται , Gal_3:12, to which our ζωοπ . glances back.
ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη ] then in reality (not merely in Jewish imagination) the law would be that, from which the existence of righteousness would proceed, namely, by its enabling men to offer complete obedience. The argument proceeds ab effectu ( ζωοποιῆσαι ) ad causam ( ἡ δικαιοσύνη ), for, without being righteous before God, man cannot attain eternal life: not as Rückert, Wieseler, Hofmann, and others, in accordance with their view of ζωοπ ., are compelled to assume, a causa (the new moral life whereby the law is fulfilled) ad effectum (the δικαιοσύνη which would be acquired by the fulfilment of the law). The relation between ζωοποιῆσαι and ἡ δικαιοσύνη is aptly indicated by Oecumenius: οὐκ ἔσωσεν οὐδὲ ἐδικαίωσεν , and by Bengel: “Justitia est vitae fundamentum.”
[163] Also in 1Co_6:15, οὖν (in opposition to Stölting’s appeal to the passage) introduces a possible (mischievous) inference from what immediately precedes, to be at once repelled with horror by μὴ γένοιτο .
[164] This consequence depends upon the dilemma: Life may be procured either through the promises or through the law. If, therefore, the law stands in opposition to the promises, so that the latter shall no longer be valid, the law must be able to procure life. This dilemma is correct, because no third possibility is given in the divine plan of salvation.
[165] Even if ἄν be not genuine, this interpretation is not altered (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 194, 6); and we cannot explain (with Hofmann): “If there was given, etc., then was,” etc. This imperfect (erat) would be illogical; Paul would have written ἐστίν or γέγονεν .