Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 5

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 5


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 5

Gal_5:1. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ , ᾖ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσε , στήκετε ] So Griesb. (reading, however, Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ), Rück., Tisch., Wieseler. But Elz., Matth., Winer, Rinck, Reiche, read τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ οὖν , ᾗ Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε , στήκετε . Lachm., followed by Usteri, reads τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν . στήκετε οὖν , which was also approved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb.; and Winer does not reject it. Scholz gives τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ , ᾗ Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε , στήκετε οὖν . Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ , ᾗ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν to Gal_4:31, and begins the new sentence with στήκετε οὖν . So also Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed by Hofmann, must be held to be the original one: (1) because amidst the numerous variations it has a decided preponderance of testimony in its favour, for ᾗ is wanting in A B C D* à and 8 min., Dam., and οὖν after στήκετε is written in A B C D* (in the Greek) F G à and some 10 min., Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas, ms. Aug. Ambrosiast.; (2) because from it the origin of the rest of the readings can be explained easily, naturally, and without prejudice to the witnesses—namely, from the endeavour to connect τῇ ἐλευθ . ἡμ . Χ . ἠλευθ . immediately with Gal_4:31. Thus in some cases τῇ was merely changed into ᾗ (F G, It. Vulg. Goth, and Fathers); in others ᾗ , was inserted before ἡμᾶς (Griesb.), allowing τῇ to remain. The relative thus introduced led others, who had in view the right connection with στήκετε , either to omit the οὖν (after στήκετε ), which the presence of the relative rendered awkward (E, Vulg. It. Syr. p. Fathers; Griesb., Rück., Tisch.), or to place it immediately after ἐλευθερίᾳ , (C*** K L, min., Fathers; Elz.). Lastly, the transposition Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς was an involuntary expedient to place the subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight of the evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the different readings of our passage from the accidental omission in writing of H before Ημας (Tisch., Wieseler), especially since very ancient witnesses, in which ᾗ is wanting, read not ἡμᾶς Χριστός , but Χριστός ἡμᾶς (as C L à ** Marcion, Chrys.).

Gal_5:3. πάλιν ] is wanting in D* F G, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Ambrosiast. The omission is caused by the similarity of the παντί which follows.

Gal_5:7. ἐνέκοψε ] The Elz. reading ἀνέκοψε is opposed to all the uncials and most min., and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill., Bengel, Matth., Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to defend it.

The τῇ which follows is wanting in A B à *. But the article forms a necessary part of the idea (comp. Gal_2:5; Gal_2:14), and the omission must be looked upon as a mere error in copying. Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole τῇ ἀληθ . μὴ πείθεσθαι to be not genuine; and the latter is disposed, instead of it, to defend μηδενὶ πείθεσθε , which is found in F G, codd. Lat. in Jer. and some vss. and Fathers, after πείθεσθαι , but is manifestly a gloss annexed to the following ἡ πεισμονή κ . τ . λ . Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of Gal_5:7 to be an inserted gloss.

Gal_5:9. ζυμοῖ ] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read δολοῖ . Approved by Mill, and Valck. Schol. II. p. 178. An interpretation, because in this passage the leaven represents something corrupting (otherwise in Mat_13:33). Comp. on 1Co_5:6.

Gal_5:14. ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ ] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read ὑμῖν , and D* E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have ἐν ὑμῖν ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ . Marcion’s reading is of antinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the following ἐν τῷ ); but the ὑμῖν introduced by it became subsequently blended with the original text.

πληροῦται ] Defended by Reiche; but A B C à , min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) Damasc. Aug. read πεπλήρωται . Justly; the meaning of the perfect (which is also adopted by Lachm., Rück., Schott, Tisch.) was not apprehended by mechanical transcribers.

σεαυτόν ] Elz., Matth., Schott, read ἑαυτόν . Certainly in opposition to A B C D E K à , min., and Greek Fathers; but the pronoun of the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in the LXX. Lev_19:18, there is the same variety of readings), and indeed the final letter of the foregoing ὡς might easily lend support to the σεαυτόν : hence ἑαυτόν is to be restored, in opposition to Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on Rom_13:9.

Gal_5:17. ταῦτα δέ ] Lachm. and Schott read ταῦτα γάρ , following B D* E F G *, 17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. Looking at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that the continuative δέ might easily appear more suitable, γάρ is to be preferred.

Gal_5:19 f. μοιχεία ] is wanting before πορν . in A B C à *, min., and many vss. and Fathers; 76, 115, Epiph. Chrys. Theophyl. have it after πορνεία . In opposition to Reiche, but with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it is to be deleted, since it has been introduced, although at a very early date (It. Or.), most probably by the juxtaposition of the two words in other passages (Mat_15:19; Mar_7:21; comp. Hos_2:2), well known to the transcribers.

ἔρεις , ζῆλοι ] Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence; the plurals were introduced in conformity to the adjoining.

Gal_5:21. φόνοι ] is wanting in B à , 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several Fathers, but in no version. Rejected by Mill, Seml., and Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account of the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as easily be omitted, as it might be added from Rom_1:29. Hence the preponderance of witnesses determines the point, and that in favour of the retention.

CONTENTS.

Exhortation to stedfastness in Christian freedom, and warning against the opposite course. If they allowed themselves to be circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing, and they would be bound to the law as a whole; by legal justification they would be severed from Christ and from grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness (Gal_5:1-6). Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy of the readers, respecting whom, however, Paul cherishes good confidence; whereas he threatens judgment against the seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no sense his (Gal_5:7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation to the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a demeanour actuated by mutual love (Gal_5:13-15); whereupon he then enters into a detailed explanation to the effect that the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the guiding power of their conduct (Gal_5:16-25). After this, special moral exhortations begin (Gal_5:26).