Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Galatians 4:19 - 4:30
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
D. Confirmation of the freedom of Christians, from the narrative of the Scripture concerning the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, by means of an interpretation referring it to the Jewish and the Christian Church
(Gal_4:21-31. The Epistle for the 4th Sunday in Lent.)
[This view of the connection of the passage is open to serious objection. Two vocatives are joined together, which are separated both in position and in tone. Gal_4:20 which contains the wish to be present is sundered from Gal_4:18, where the thought of his presence is introduced. The idea of travailing is joined to a passage of argument by illustration, and separated from the more personal part of the discourse. If there be a difficulty about. äÝ (Gal_4:20) as introducing an “opposition,” and hence a parenthesis be deemed necessary, this “opposition” may be found (Meyer) “in the tacit contrast between the subject of his wish to be present with them, and his actual absence and separation.” It seems best then to connect Gal_4:19-20 together—detaching them as a burst of tenderness from both the preceding and subsequent context, though joined in thought more closely with the I former.—R.]
With whom I am again in travail.—i. e., the second time.—The labor of his spirit on the hearts of the readers he here compares with the travail of a mother (elsewhere with the begetting of the father), in which the point of comparison I is the activity directed to the coming of a child into the world; with the mother—of a natural child; here with the Apostle—of a spiritual child. This image is continued with the expression until Christ be formed in you.—It is a ripe, completely developed child that is in contemplation=in which the life has come to perfect manifestation. Such a child, and only such a one, renders a mother’s pangs of labor effectual, for only such a child lives, and therefore only in such a one has she a child. So long as the birth is not that of a perfect child, so long must she ever look forward to new pangs of labor, before she can have this, her wish granted. [Ellicott: “The idea is not so much of the pain, as of the long and continuous effort of the travail.”—R.]—With justice therefore is the complete formation of the child represented as the aim of the labor, and there is here nothing like an inversion of the physiological process, in which the formatio takes place ante partum. This is not here the point in question. The natural child is completely developed, in that the natural life, as it were the spirit of life, comes in it to perfect manifestion, gains an actual, corresponding form. What this natural spirit of life is in the natural child, Christ is in the spiritual child, as the principle of spiritual life, and hence the expression of the Apostle: Christ is ìïñöùèῆíáé in them=the inward principle is to come with them to manifestation to gain a form in an established, assured, evangelical conviction of faith; only when this takes place, has Paul as spiritual mother actually a spiritual child. But since this is wanting, as is shown by their apostacy, he is therefore now bearing them once again, in the hope that this perfect formation may come to pass. (If it had not, he would have needed to travail in birth still again, but here, as is natural, he only speaks of a second travail.) That in nature a completely developed child is not hoped for from a second bearing of the same child, is a self-evident incongruity between the fact and the image, but it answers the purpose that the activity is the same—in both cases there is a travail of birth.—Wieseler incorrectly finds in ðÜëéí ὠäßíåéí the doctrinal conception of the new birth, and takes ðÜëéí therefore as antithetical to the natural birth. In the first place the Apostle’s lamentation over the alteration that had taken place in the readers, brings almost necessarily to our thoughts the probability of a renewed activity among them; and secondly he could well designate the labor bestowed by him upon the Galatians as a bearing of spiritual children, but not as a regeneration in the doctrinal sense, for this appertains to God alone. Paul’s travailing in birth with them, it is true, had as its end, their becoming regenerate children of God, but the one is not therefore to be identified with the other.
Gal_4:20. I could wish indeed to be present with you.—[This rendering, though not literal, brings out the force of the passage, and the “tacit contrast” in äÝ . See above.—&.]—And to change my tone.—This, in its immediate connection with a wish to be present with them, appears to signify: I should be glad to give my language such a form as suits with oral intercourse; from the written style, with its more formal, unpliable character, less suited to make an impression on the heart, I should be glad to pass over into oral discourse. But öùíὴí ἀëëÜîáé does not on this account mean: to interchange discourse with any one=to converse together, as Wieseler singularly assumes. Why he should like to be with them, and to vary his discourse, he then expressly declares: For I am perplexed about you.— Ἐí , the perplexity has its ground chiefly in them, in their state of mind. He knows not with what arguments he can find access to them and dispose them to a return. Therefore he thinks now he could more easily accomplish something by oral discourse with them. Meyer understands öùíὴí ἀëëÜóóåéí of a wish of Paul, instead of the rigorous tone used in his last visit, to essay a milder tone. But this is far from evident.—Rieger justly remarks that in a certain sense Paul does immediately after in Gal_4:21 what he wishes in Gal_4:20, namely, varies the form of his language, and speaks as if he were present with them: ëÝãåôÝìïé ê . ô . ë . [For the various interpretations of the phrase “change my voice” see Meyer in loco. The view given above seems tame, but the reference to the tone during his second visit is doubtful. So also the interpretation: “to modify my language from time to time as occasion demands.” Certainly it is improper to think of a desire to change his tone to a more severe one (in contrast with the mild ôåêíßá ). On the whole it seems best to conclude 1) that the desired change was from the severe to the milder address; 2) that the severe tone referred to is that of the present Epistle (so Ellicott and many others).—R.]
Gal_4:21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?—“Hear” is hardly to be taken precisely as implying that the law was publicly read by the pseudo-apostles among them, but generally: Do you not give heed to what is written in the Law? The second time íüìïò , according to the Jewish use of úåֹøָä = the Pentateuch. From the law itself, on which you lay so much stress, you might discover that you are not, and are not meant to be under the law. [Meyer:—“At the close of the theoretical part of his Epistle, Paul now appends a very peculiar allegoric argument from the law itself, intended to destroy the influence of the false Apostles with their own weapons, and to root it up out of its own proper soil.”—R.]
Gal_4:22. For it is written.— ÃÜñ =I must inquire: do ye not hear the Law; for if you really heard the law, you would find in it that which might convince you how unsound and dangerous it is to “desire to be under the law.” That to which Paul refers the Galatians, as being found in the law, is the narrative in Genesis, of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, the one by the bondmaid, Hagar, and the other by the free woman, Sarah. As is known, he had Ishmael first, and he is therefore mentioned first. They were therefore indeed both Abraham’s sons, but they had not merely different mothers, but mothers also of entirely different conditions; the one was the son of a bondmaid, the other of a free woman.
Gal_4:23. Yet even with that they might have been begotten in like manner, but ( ἀëëÜ ) this was far from being the case, the son of the bondmaid was begotten after the flesh, and the son of the free woman through the promise.— Êáôὰ óÜñêá = entirely in the ordinary way of natural generation, of carnal intercourse; äéὰôῆò ἐðáããåëßáò = formally also, it is true, in this way, but materially (by the side of which the other is a vanishing factor), by virtue of the divine promise, which Abraham had received, inasmuch as God in a miraculous manner, restored the long-lost capacity of Sarah to conceive, so that in truth the efficient factor was God. [The preposition äéÜ denoting the causa medians (Ellicott).—R.]
Gal_4:24. Which things are allegorical, ἅôéíÜ ἐóôéí ἀëëçãïñïýìåíá .—Paul thus introduces his interpretation of the narrative which he quotes. He states what the Galatians might learn from it. [Ellicott has a valuable note on the distinction between ὅò and ὅóôéò . His view of ἅôéíá is thus expressed: “all which things viewed in their most general light.” This wider meaning will guard against the assumption that the narrative itself was a mere allegory and not historical.—R.]— Ἀëëçãïñåῖí = ἄëëï ἀãïñåýåéí : to say something else than is expressed by the letter, to say something in figures; passively: to have a tropical sense, ἀëëçãïñïýìåíïí åἶíáé = to be something that has such a sense. That Paul understands what is related in Genesis of Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, etc., as history also, needs I no proof: but undoubtedly at the same time he sees in the history an intimation of something else, something higher, than the simple history relates. In what sense, see below, in the Doctrinal Notes. [The precise meaning of ἀëëçãïñåῖí must be noted. It may be made to cover the thought: to be treated as having an allegorical sense, but here we must insist on the more definite and strict meaning: to have an allegorical sense. “Which things viewed in their most general light have an allegorical meaning;” this interpretation will guard against the assumptions and errors which are based upon a looser view. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.]
To what the history points is then stated: for these are two covenants.— Áὐôáé seems not to refer immediately, i. e., grammatically, to the women, but, according to ordinary Greek usage, to stand for ôáῦôá ; it would be somewhat different if in Gal_4:23 the women were the subjects. Substantially no doubt it refers to the two women, in whom he sees types of the two covenants—not however in the twofold marriage covenant of Abraham with Hagar and Sarah (as Jatho assumes, who, in order to sustain this view, is obliged to give an exceedingly forced interpretation of “which is Agar”). It is peculiar, and renders the understanding of this passage somewhat difficult, that Paul, in the first place, designates the women and not the sons themselves as symbols, more particularly as prophetic symbols of the two covenants; and in the second place, it even more perplexes the matter, that he finds in them the two covenants == of God with men, which were typified or prophesied (that is, in general, the Old and the New Covenant), and takes these themselves as mothers, and then from these first passes over to the two diverse churches, whose motherhood appears more clearly when viewed in connection with their members. Of course, however, the covenants stand in intimate relation to the churches; it is not only they that confer on them their peculiar character, but also that properly constitute them; without the covenants the churches would not exist.—The one from Mount Sinai, etc.—A pregnant expression = the first covenant is that which originates from mount Sinai and bears unto bondage. Ãåííῶóá , feminine, because it corresponds to the mother Hagar. The expression åἰò äïõëåßáí ãåííῶóá is itself to be supplemented so that it=bearing, sc. children, as it were into bondage = and translating them into bondage, of course by subjection to the law, for the covenant from Sinai is the covenant of law.—Which is Hagar.—This is = this covenant is typified by Hagar, for she too as “bondmaid” bore children “unto bondage.” This is of course primarily the ground why he compares the Sinaitic covenant with Hagar; of both alike the bearing children unto bondage” was an attribute. But this abrupt assertion: the Sinaitic covenant is Hagar, or, Hagar signifies the Sinaitic covenant, because it as well as she “bore unto bondage,” is of itself too bold and startling, and Paul therefore in a parenthesis intimates that Sinai and Hagar, far apart as they might seem to be, yet even independently of this “bearing,” stand of themselves related to one another.
Gal_4:25. The words setting forth this relation are, according to one reading: ôὸ ãὰñ Óéíᾶ ὄñïòἐóὶí ἐí ôῇ Ἀñáâßᾳ : according to the other: ôὸ äὲ [or ãÜñ ͅ] Ἄãáñ Óéíᾶ ὄñïò , &c. Accepting the first reading, Paul points to the fact that Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia—that therefore the Sinaitic covenant has one home with Hagar, and so far a relation to her. Both originate from Arabia—are not at home in the Holy Land; while yet they both came in near relation to the people of God; Hagar to Abraham, bearing him a son; the Sinaitic covenant to Abraham’s posterity, raising up children to this; for Israel by the Sinaitic covenant first became an organized theocratic people, possessing the principle of self-preservation and hereditary continuance.—Accepting the reading: ôὸ äὲ Ἄãáñ , ê . ô . ë . in which äÝ is exceedingly well suited to introduce an elucidation, which indeed it properly is, rather than a demonstration [ ãÜñ being however the more probable reading, on critical grounds, see critical note.—R.], the Apostle points out that even as to name there exists a relation between Hagar and the Sinaitic covenant,—that it is not therefore so arbitrary as might seem on his part, to interpret the former as a type of the latter; for that among the Arabians, Mount Sinai has just this name of Hagar, and that—as Paul undoubtedly assumes—after Hagar. It is true we have no other proof of Sinai’s having this appellation, and it would have to be assumed that Paul had learned, perhaps from his sojourn in Arabia, that Sinai bore this name also among the Arabs, which he referred back to Hagar. It is certainly probable, that the Arabs named Sinai Ἄãáñ ; for this is = Rock, and so corresponds precisely to the character of this mountain chain, and probably also to the signification of the ancient name “Sinai” itself, which etymology renders by “Rock.”—Paul would then, only err in the reference of this name Ἄãáñ to the Hagar of the Old Testament, but at all events the name would be the same, and this, in the first instance would be the main thing. Yet this circumstance will always make this reading suspicious.
[In addition to these interpretations, which may be distinguished as I., II., another (III.) must be considered, viz., that of Calvin, Beza, Estius, Wordsworth (and Lightfoot, if the correctness of the Recepta be established): “For this Hagar (is) represents Mount Sinai in Arabia.”—I. is comparatively free from grammatical difficulty, forming a parenthesis, which introduces a geographical remark, the point of which is obvious, though on the whole it seems much tamer than the other views. Besides the critical grounds for preferring the longer reading (not the least strong being this absence of grammatical difficulties), it may be objected 1. That since a mere geographical remark would be unnecessary, the emphasis must lie on ἐí ôῇ Ἀñáâ .; but to convey such an emphasis, the Greek order should be ἐí ôῇ Ἀñ . ἐóôßí (Alford). 2. Meyer intimates that this view must press as the essential point, the fact that the mountain was “outside of the land of Canaan,” and yet this essential point is only implied. Still there is not much force in this objection, since the positive statement “is in Arabia,” the land of bondsmen, is after all the main thought, the other being a negative antitheses, that may well be omitted.—II. is adopted by Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, and many older commentators (Chrysostom, Luther, et al). This may be called the etymological view. Here the grammatical difficulties are not great, for it may readily be conceded, that ôὸ Ἄãáñ means “the word Agar,” ἐóôßí , “means”—and ἐí ôῇ Áñ . either “among the Arabians” or “in the Arabian (supply äéáëÝêôῳ ) dialect,” and the objection that “the word Agar” cannot properly be the subject of óõóôïé÷åῖ is met by putting a semicolon at the end of this clause, or throwing it into a parenthesis. The real difficulties are far graGal Gal_4:1. It is extremely doubtful whether “Agar” did mean “in Arabia, Mount Sinai.” The testimony of travellers is not strong, that of philology even less so. Granting that the Arabic word for “rock” is similar in sound, we are far from settling the question of identity of name. 2. “If in writing to a half-Greek, half-Celtic people, he ventured to argue from an Arabic word at all, he would at all events be careful to make his drift intelligible” (“Lightfoot). Was it likely to be intelligible to them, when in these days of philological and geographical research, this interpretation is still doubtful? 3. The argument or illustration seems fanciful when resting on this identity of name, especially as Hagar had a meaning in Hebrew, and Sarah also, which meanings could well have been used here, were it a question of names.—III. “For this Hagar represents,” etc. This may be called the typical or allegorical interpretation, and for that very reason more likely to be correct in this connection. It avoids the objections against I. on the score of emphasis, and tameness; with II. follows the reading which seams more correct, but avoids the fanciful and doubtful features of that view. Meyer considers the neuter article an insuperable objection. But this may be met 1) as is done by Wordsworth, by joining the article with Óéíᾶ ὄñïò not with Ἄãáñ . He contends that this is allowable and that no other order was admissible. Still this seems unnatural. Or 2) by understanding ôὸ Ἄãáñ , “the thing Hagar,” not the woman, for Gal_4:24 passes over into allegory, but the allegorical Hagar,—her position as set forth in Gal_4:24. This is less objectionable. As this is the only real difficulty ( ἐóôßí , “represents,” is of course admissible), we may adopt III. as perhaps the safest view, seemingly that of E. V. As regards punctuation, a comma then suffices after this clause, and Ἄãáñ is the grammatical subject of óõóôïé÷åῖ .—R.]
Ranks with.— Óõóôïé÷åῖ äÝ might be connected with ἤôéò (Gal_4:24) or back of that with ìßá , sc. äéáèÞêç . [So De Wette, Lightfoot.—R.] “For she is in bondage” is given as the proof of “ranks with,” and this evidently refers to “bearing children unto bondage” (Gal_4:24). The covenant “bearing children unto bondage” “ranks with the present Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children.” Óõóôïé÷åῖí , to stand in one row with something else, to belong to the same species, to belong together with anything. The Sinaitic covenant, says Paul, and the present Jerusalem, although separated in time and place, yet belong essentially together; the former brought into “bondage,” the latter is in that very bondage. The object is to show that an internal relation exists between the Sinaitic covenant and the present Jerusalem. [This is certainly preferable to the view of Chrysostom and most of the Fathers, Luther et al., which takes Óéíᾶ as the subject, and renders the verb either “is contiguous to” or “joined in a continuous (mountain) range” with Jerusalem. The thought is irrelevant, and we should then have Mt. Zion, rather than Jerusalem, following the verb. Lightfoot thus shows the exact meaning of the verb: “In military language óõóôïé÷ßá denotes a, file, as óõæõãßá does a rank of soldiers; comp. Polyb. X. 21, 7. The allegory of the text may be represented by óõóôïé÷ßáé thus:
Hagar, the bond woman.
Ishmael. the child after the flesh.
The Old Covenant.
The earthly Jerusalem, etc.
Sarah, the free woman.
Isaac, the child of promise.
The New Covenant.
The heavenly Jerusalem, etc.”
Accepting this meaning, it is necessary to take exception to embracing the idea of type in the word. Those in each list are óýóôïé÷ïé with each other, but ἀíôßóôïé÷ïé to those in the opposite list.—R.]—It seems however more accordant with the context to make Ἄãáñ (Gal_4:25) the subject. For Hagar is a type of the present Jerusalem, “ranks with”—stands in the same row with it, or better, fits as a type to the antitype [?] Moreover Hagar was “in bondage with her children, just as the present Jerusalem.” Besides in this connection there is significant reference to the fact that “the present Jerusalem” corresponds to Hagar alone—and not to Sarah: the special proof of which is, what is affirmed of “the present Jerusalem,” viz.: “for she is in bondage with her children.” [So that not only the proximity of the word Ἄãáñ , but the closer correspondence also, supports the view that “Hagar” is the logical subject of the verb. See Meyer.—R.]
The present Jerusalem.—Jerusalem represents here as it always did in the Old Testament, the Jewish people; but this as a collective personality, and moreover a maternal one, the individual members of the people being viewed as children of this mother. Ἡ íῦí Ἱåñïõó . is the present Jerusalem in contrast with the ìåëë . Ἱåñïõó . as it shall become through the Messiah, i. e., through faith in Him, the Jerusalem, which has not, and so long as it has not, received the Messiah. “The present Jerusalem” meaning thus the historical Israel, the Jewish people, its children are of course “born after the flesh” and Paul presupposes this as self-evident.—Is in bondage.—This cannot apply to the yoke of the Romans, for this has nothing at all to do with the Sinaitic covenant, but applies to the being in bondage under the Mosaic law. A state of bondage in this sense Paul predicates of the existing Jewish church without further proof, as something which the readers after the preceding exposition of the nature of the law (comp. Gal_3:23; Gal_4:3-7), must concede, and indeed that the Jews were strenuous observers of the law was a matter beyond doubt.
Gal_4:26. But Jerusalem which is above is free.—Paul does not continue the course of thought begun in Gal_4:24 with “for these are two covenants.” He names the first covenant only, not the second one also, but to make the contrast more palpable, opposes at once to the present Jerusalem, which is in bondage, another Jerusalem which is free. Now the present Jerusalem is in a condition of bondage because the first covenant, which is a covenant of bondage, came in her to manifestation. So the freedom, of the other Jerusalem would have its ground also in the character of the Second covenant, which comes into manifestation in her, and we have a right to find implied a second covenant bearing children unto freedom, which is typified prophetically by Sarah, just as the covenant of bondage by Hagar. If we inquire what this second covenant is, according to the previous context, the answer cannot be doubtful; over against the covenant of law stands a covenant of grace or promise. Wieseler’s parallelism goes too far, where he wishes to supply: äåõôÝñá äὲ ( äéáèÞêç ) ἀðὸ ὄñïõò Óéὼí , åἰò ἐëåõèåñßáí ãåííῶóá , ἥôéò ἐóôὶ ÓÜῤῥá . ôὸ ãὰñ Óéὼí , åἰí ὄñïò ἐóôὶí ἐí ôῇ ãῇ ôῆò ἐðáããåëßáò , óõóôïé÷åῖ äὲ ôῇ ἄíù ἹåñïõóáëÞì . ἐëåõèÝñç ãÜñ ἐóôé ìåôὰ ôῶí ôÝêíùí áὐôῆò . [“The second covenant from Mount Zion, bearing children unto freedom, which is Sarah. For Zion is a mountain in the land of promise, and ranks with Jerusalem above, for she is free with her children.” This follows from his view of Gal_4:25, and is objectionable besides for the reason that it forces an allegory beyond the point to which it has been carried by the Apostle himself.—R.] Somewhat too definite also is Meyer’s view: The other covenant is the one established in Christ (see afterwards on ἡ ἄíù ἹåñïõóáëÞì ). Paul has not waited till now to give the proof that the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise, and that on this account Jerusalem above is also free. This is in part clear from what precedes and in part results from the nature of the case, since a covenant of promise given of grace, because it has nothing to do with any law, can have no connection with “bondage” either. In addition he now demonstrates to the Galatians this only, that they are children of that Jerusalem which is free, and that therefore it would be preposterous for them to wish to be under the law. “Free” of course =not being under the law.
The main question is, what ἡ ἄíù Ἱåñïõó . signifies. “Jerusalem” here also means a church taken as a collective personality, her individual members being conceived as her children. But ἡ ἄíù Ἱåñïõó . is of course not the “ancient” Jerusalem, the Salem of Melchisedek, nor yet the mountain of Zion, which in Josephus is called ἡ ἄíù ðüëéò . [Lightfoot: “The Apostle instinctively prefers the Hebrew form Ἱåñïõóáëὴì here for the typical city, as elsewhere in this Epistle (Gal_1:17-18; Gal_2:1) he employs the Græcised form Ἱåñüóüëõìá for the actual city. ‘ Ἱåñïõóáëὴì est appellatio Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: Éåñïóüëõìá , deinceps obvia, Græca, magis politico,’ says Bengel on Rev_21:2, accounting for the usage of St. John (in the Gospel the latter; in the Apocalypse the former), and referring to this passage in illustration.”—R.] On the other hand Luther is right in his decided protest against the reference to the ecclesia triumphans, for the Christians of this world are here designated by Paul as children of this ἄíù ἹåñïõóáëÞì . (Only so much is correct, that with the ðáñïõóßá it is no other than this very ἄíù Ἱåñïõó . that comes to perfection, so that the Church after the ðáñïõóßá is essentially identical with that before it. But the eye is not at all directed here to the ðáñïõóßá ; and the very reason why the expression ἡ ìÝëëïõóá Ἱåñïõó . is not chosen is, that after Christ had appeared upon earth this must be referred to the ðáñïõóἱá . Wieseler is therefore also incorrect in asserting not only that the church of the perfected is meant, but in insisting as he does that these are expressly comprehended.)—But ἡ ἄíù Ἱåñïõó . must at all events signify a Jerusalem that is above, an upper Jerusalem, and this “above” can only refer to Heaven. Here again Luther has a right understanding of it, in the main point at all events, when he remarks that this “above” is to be understood not of place but of character: “when St. Paul speaks of a Jerusalem above and the other here below upon earth, he means that the one Jerusalem is spiritual, but the other earthly. For there is a great distinction between spiritual and corporeal or earthly things. What is spiritual, that is above, but what is earthly, that is here below. Therefore says he then, that the spiritual Jerusalem is above, not that in respect to space or place it is higher than the earthly here below, but in that it is spiritual.” The upper Jerusalem would therefore = the spiritual Jerusalem. This explanation, it is true, does not appear to do full justice to the material idea “above,” but it leads in. the right direction for this, and needs only to be completed by including also the conception of space which is contained in ἄíù . That is, ἡ ἄíù Ἱåñïõó . is not= the Jerusalem that is localiter, externally situated above (this is refuted by Luther), but the Jerusalem, that as to its essential character is an upper, heavenly one, and therefore neither originates from earth nor belongs to earth, but originates from Heaven and belongs to Heaven, lot it be situated where it may, of which nothing is expressly said. (In reality Luther also means this and nothing else by his spiritual Jerusalem, and his explanation, therefore, only apparently incurs the reproach of spiritualizing.) Whether the expression is immediately founded upon the rabbinical doctrine of the éøåּùׁìéí ùׁì îòìä “which according to Jewish teaching is the archetype existing in Heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and at the establishment of the Messianic kingdom will be let down from Heaven to earth, in order, as the earthly Jerusalem is the central point and the capital of the old theocracy, to be the same for the Messianic theocracy” (Meyer), cannot be affirmed with certainty; that Paul did not share the crude and sensuous rabbinical conceptions of this heavenly Jerusalem, but had a scripturally purified idea of it, is in any case clear; so that from the Jewish schools he only derives the expression rather than the substance of the idea. At the most he had only the fundamental conception, which was then essentially modified. [Lightfoot: “With them,” i. e., the rabbinical teachers, “it is an actual city, the exact counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem in its topography and furniture: with him it is a symbol or image, representing that spiritual city of which the Christian is even now a denizen (Php_3:20). The contrast between the two scene?, as they appeared to the eye, would enhance, if it did not suggest the imagery of St. Paul here. On the one hand, Mount Zion, of old the joy of the whole earth, now more beautiful than ever in the fresh glories of the Herodian renaissance, glittering in gold and marble; on the other, Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren sides, bleak and desolate, the oppressive power of which the Apostle himself had felt during his sojourn there—these scenes fitly represented the contrast between the glorious hopes of the new covenant and the blank despair of the old. Comp. Heb_12:18-22.”—R.]
And she is our mother.—If we seek to define still more distinctly the idea of the ἄíù Ἱåñïõó ., we shall find that here also Luther had the right sense of it, when he peremptorily declares, and in opposition to the transcendental fantasies, which overlooked the actually operative heavenly forces in the word and sacraments, so strongly insists that: “the heavenly Jerusalem, which is above, is nothing else than the dear church or Christendom, that arc in the whole world here and there dispersed, who all together have one gospel, one manner of faith in Christ, one Holy Ghost, and one manner of sacrament.” Only here again he makes the idea too special. The upper Jerusalem, which essentially springs from Heaven and not from earth, and belongs to Heaven and not to earth, is in the first instance nothing else than the true Church and people of God in its entire generality; for this has its constitution not in the covenant of law, but in the covenant of grace or promise, and its essential character may therefore with full right, nay must be denominated by Paul a heavenly one.—As certainly now as Paul dated back the covenant of grace as far back beyond the covenant of law as Abraham’s time, so certainly did this “upper Jerusalem” properly begin with Abraham himself, although at first indeed rather in the way of promise, in idea, as it were, but yet realiter, as certainly as God’s covenant of grace was one really concluded. This “upper Jerusalem” then, it is true, first came to full manifestation with the advent of the Messiah, as with this God’s covenant of grace first found its true actualization; and so far is the upper Jerusalem=Christendom, but yet even now it must not be identified with it. It is a higher, more general idea, precisely=God’s congregation [Gottesgemeinde] which the idea of the church does not altogether exhaust, but which continues to rise above it, lying at the foundation of the church, which is its concrete manifestation, but yet to be distinguished from it; and indeed this idea of the congregation of God will never attain its completely adequate expression in the church of this dispensation, but only with the ðáñïõóßá will such a complete coincidence of ideas and phenomenon be realized (as indeed on the other hand the present Jerusalem which is in bondage was also not absolutely coincident with the Jewish community, but many members of it raised themselves above this bondage, although no doubt in this case the coincidence was far more nearly complete). [Meyer’s interpretation: “the Messianic theocracy, which before the ðáñïõóßá is the church, and after it Christ’s kingdom of glory” is substantially correct, provided we sufficiently extend the meaning of
the word “Church.” Our conceptions of her, “who is our mother,” must here be large enough to include all her children, in the Old and the New Dispensations, as militant and triumphant. See Doctrinal Notes.—R.] What Paul now wishes to show is, that Christians are children of this true congregation of God, that is grounded upon the covenant of grace, and therefore of course is free, and not merely that they are children of the Christian community, which certainly would have needed no proof.—From the foregoing we see still more evidently (what has already been touched upon above), that the expression ἡ ìÝëëïõóá Ἱåñïõó ., although it would have corresponded with ἡ íῦí Ἱåñïõó ., would not have been suitable here. On the other hand nothing stood in the way of designating the natural Israel as ἡ íῦí Ἱåñïõó ., inasmuch as every one would refer this expression to the right object; in this sense a êÜôù Ἱåñïõó . would have sounded strange, and would have been less intelligible, so that the want of correspondence in the expressions is not at all surprising.
Gal_4:27-28 contain the proof of the proposition that “Jerusalem which is above” is the mother of Christians,—in syllogistic form, only not quite exact, since ὑìåῖò is the more probable reading in Gal_4:28. Gal_4:27, major premise: To the “Jerusalem which is above,” although she does not bear, there are many children promised, who therefore, as Isaac, must have been born purely in virtue of Divine promise.
Gal_4:28, minor premise: But now are we, or rather, says the Apostle, with definite application to the readers, for whom particularly the proof is intended, ye are the children of promise, after the analogy of Isaac;—therefore (conclusion) ye are children of the Jerusalem above.
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, etc.—For the major premise Paul appeals to Isa_54:1. The theocratic nation is addressed during the Babylonian exile, and told that though aforetime in the bloom of Israel’s prosperity she was like a woman “who hath a husband,” who had by her husband numerous children, she now resembled a woman that is “desolate” = without a husband (for it had been repudiated by God), and in consequence—for óôåῖñá is here to be taken in this sense—is “barren,” “not bearing,” “not travailing,” bears no children. (God is to be conceived as the husband, if this part of the figure is also to be interpreted, according to the familiar Biblical image of God’s marriage covenant with Israel.) But yet is she to rejoice, and loudly to express her joy ( ῥῆîïí sc. öùíÞí , rumpe vocem, let loose the voice), for she shall become richer in children than before! This therefore not in the way of natural generation, but through the immediate extraordinary operation of God: they are therefore children not “after the flesh,” but born “through the promise.” (Only, so to speak, the natural, carnal relation of God to the people as begetting natural posterity, was dissolved; God yet remained, in the exercise of a higher energy, devoted to the people as His people, for the very end of bringing in something higher than before.) Evidently in this the image of Sarah hovers before the prophet, of that barren one who was “desolate,” that is, at least as “barren” could have no conjugal intercourse with her husband, and therefore was so far without husband, and who yet became a mother of a numerous progeny in virtue of the Divine energy. Thus even the prophet sees in Sarah a type of the theocratic nation—not, it is true, in her condition of freedom, but at least in her becoming a mother by promise, and therefore is she a type of the theocratic people, inasmuch as this increases not in the natural way=through natural descent, but through the addition of spiritual children.—Herein also is found Paul’s justification for referring this passage immediately to “Jerusalem which is above.” Primarily, indeed, it applies to the theocratic people as a whole. But even here, to the natural children,=to such as become members of the theocratic people by natural descent, are opposed spiritual children=such as become such in virtue of Divine operation, without natural consanguinity. The sense therefore cannot be merely: The now depopulated Israel shall again become populous, yea, even more than before, by renewal of the now interrupted conjugal intimacy; but from that people of God which increased by natural descent, there is distinguished the people of God in the higher, completely true sense, whose existence does not depend on natural descent, but on Divine operation, that is of course, the operation of the Spirit, inasmuch as God through His Spirit produces faith, and so raises up children to His people, regarded as mother, or to Abraham their first ancestor. There is thus contrasted with the natural, empirical people of God, the one ἔ÷ïõóá ôὸí ἄíäñá , which is now continued in the present Jerusalem, a higher spiritual one, the one which is “barren, bearing not,”=not naturally maintaining and increasing itself, i. e., in short the “Jerusalem which is above.”—The fulfilment of the promise then, took place, i. e., numerous children, without being naturally begotten by the theocratic people, were born to it, in particular, through the appearance of the Messiah, for all, who came to believe on Him, became thereby, and not by natural descent, members of God’s people (comp. Gal_4:28).—But it must here be remarked in addition, that Paul’s design is not strictly to declare positively of the Jerusalem above (as even Meyer assumes), that it had first been barren, therefore first unpopulated, childless, and had then become the mother of children (with the origin of the Christian people of God); but he means thereby only to distinguish it from the theocratic people that is maintained and continued by natural means. In distinction from this the Jerusalem above is in its nature—and remains therefore barren, not bearing, not travailing, desolate, for she obtains children indeed, but by no means through becoming fertile, ôßêôåéí , ὠäßíåéí = not by such natural processes, as if these had only failed for awhile, and had then again become operative; on the other hand the children are given to her in a way not to be naturally explained, not as bodily offspring, but spiritually by Divine operation; for she is and remains not “having a husband” (=who does not stand to God in this natural and carnal relation). [Alford:—The “husband” of the E. V. may mislead “by pointing at the one husband (Abraham) who was common to Sara and Agar, which might do in this passage, but not in Isaiah: whereas ἔ÷ . ôὸí ἄíäñá means, ‘her (of the two) who has (the) husband,’ the other having none: a fineness of meaning which we cannot give in English.” This goes to sustain the view of Schmoller.—R.] We need not be perplexed because this would create a divergence from the type of Sarah, with whom certainly, after her barrenness, a bearing and travailing took place. But although Paul undoubtedly knew this well, he yet (Gal_4:23; Gal_4:29) denies explicitly and roundly that Isaac was born after the flesh and vindicates to him only a being born through the promise, after the Spirit; and he can very well apprehend the contrast thus absolutely, because he looks only at the essential thing, the determining, generative principle, and this was purely “the promise,” “the spirit,” even though the act did not proceed without the medium of the “flesh.” Sarah, is his meaning, did not obtain her son Isaac, because from a naturally unfruitful woman she had become a naturally fruitful one; her obtaining the son was therefore only, as it were, formally, not essentially, a ôßêôåéí , &c. (see on Gal_4:23). But if Paul expresses himself thus even respecting Sarah, with whom nevertheless in a certain sense a ôßêôåéí , and the like, did take place, the same of course holds good in its full sense of the antitype, the true people of God, as Jerusalem above. This is precisely its specific quality, that it obtains children without “bearing” as “barren,” and in this very way approves itself as the true people of God, for which God begets children; therefore we have only: “many are the children of the desolate,” not: she will bear many children. Of course “barren” varies a little; at first it is one who cannot bear, because she is deprived of the husband; but from that it becomes one, who does not bear and is to bear, i. e., does not in this way obtain children, and is to obtain them, but in another way. But this variation is already implied in the original sense of the passage, which as it were says: “Barren hast thou become, that cannot bear; well, so shalt thou be and remain, but not to thy hurt, but to thy good,” &c.—Many are the children of the desolate more, etc.—Meyer rightly explains: not= ðëåßïíá ἤ , which would leave the numerousness of the children wholly undetermined, but it expresses, that both have many children, but the solitary one, more=numerous are the children of the solitary, far more, than of her who hath her husband.
Gal_4:28 places the Galatians, as Christians, among the children of the Jerusalem above, promised her in Gal_4:27. As Isaac was.— Êáôὰ ἸóáÜê , in conformity with, according to the type of, even as Isaac. The antitype of the mother, Sarah, was named Gal_4:26; even so are Christians antitypes of her son, Isaac.—Children of Promise,—opposed to óáñêὸò ôÝêíá , therefore properly children whom the promise has born=who are born in virtue of the promise of God, not through carnal generation.—So was it with Isaac; he was born to Abraham as son in this way. Even so is it with you: you have in this way been born, i. e., become member’s of God’s people. This needs no proof, for on one side, it was certain that they as Christians were members of God’s people, and on the other side also, that they were not so by nature, by carnal descent, but in a spiritual manner, namely, through their knowledge of Christ, to which God had led them by His Spirit, thereby fulfilling His promise. It therefore follows from this, that they belong, because members of the theocratic people, and yet not such by natural descent, to “the children of the desolate” (Gal_4:27)=have her (to whom, although desolate, children are promised by God) as their mother, as was affirmed in Gal_4:26.
Gal_4:29. Still as then he that was born after the flesh.—Why will you nevertheless be under the law, and so in the condition of bondage? Paul had brought home to his hearers, You are like Isaac, not like Ishmael. This he had deduced from the manner of the birth of each. But now he adds—looking at the subsequent lot of each—a warning, that it is dangerous to place themselves in a position like Ishmael’s, for he had been shut out of the inheritance. Even so will it fare—Paul gives them to understand, with those that are like Ishmael=those that are under the law. ἈëëÜ : for the thought which Paul first expresses, is in opposition to that in the foregoing verse, where he had described Christians as having a possession, as children of the free woman, because children of the promise. Yet Paul does not affirm this in order to frighten them back from the condition of freedom, as one of persecution, but on the contrary ( ἀëëÜ , Gal_4:30) in order to set forth immediately after the evil lot of the children of the bondwoman, as persecutors, and thus to hinder the Ch