Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Gal_4:7. κληρονόμος ] Elz. and Scholz add Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ . There are many variations, among which κληρ . διὰ Θεοῦ has most external attestation, viz. A B C* à *, Copt. Vulg. Boern. Clem. Bas. Cyr. Didym. Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel.; so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta κληρ . Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ is defended by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum Opusc. p. 148, and Reiche; whilst Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold only κληρ . διὰ Χριστοῦ as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome (238, lect. 19, have κληρ . διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ); Griesb. and Rück., however, would read merely κληρονόμος (so 178 alone). Theophyl. Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Rom_8:17 κληρ . μὲν Θεοῦ , συγκληρ . δὲ Χριστοῦ . Amidst this great diversity, the much preponderating attestation of κληρ . διὰ Θεοῦ (in favour of which F G also range themselves with κληρ . διὰ Θεόν ) is decisive; so that the Recepta must be regarded as having arisen from a gloss, and the mere κληρονόμος , which has almost no attestation, as resulting from a clerical omission of διὰ Θεοῦ .
Gal_4:8. φύσει μή ] So A B C D* E à , min., vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. Matth. Scholz, Schott, Reiche, have μὴ φύσει . Opposed to this is the decisive weight of the evidence just given, and the internal ground, that in τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς people might easily find the entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but be more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the gods reality in general, and only denying them actual divinity. The same cause probably induced the omission of φύσει in K, 117, Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir. Victorin. Ambrosiast.
Gal_4:14. πειρασμόν μου τόν ] So Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. Reiche, following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and Fathers. But A B C** D* F G à *, 17, 39, 67*, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast. Sedul., have τειρασμὸν ὑμῶν . Recommended by Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. And justly; ὑμῶν not being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. Arm. Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Rück., Schott, Fritzsche), or amended by μου τόν . Comp. Wieseler.
Gal_4:15. τίς οὖν ] Grot., Lachm., Rück., Usteri, Ewald, Hofm., read ποῦ οὖν , which is indeed attested by A B C F G à , min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel., but by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia ( τὸ οὖν τίς ἐνταῦθα ἀντὶ τοῦ ποῦ ὁ μακαρ .), Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecum., is pretty well shown to be an ancient interpretation.
The ἦν which follows is omitted in A B C L à , min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. Theodoret. ms. Expunged by Lachm. and Scholz, also Tisch. Rightly. According as τίς was understood either correctly as expressing quality, or as equivalent to ποῦ , either ἦν (D E K et al.) or ἐστι (115, Sedul. Jer.), or even νῦν (122, Erp.), was supplied. In Oecum. the reading ἦν is combined with the explanation ποῦ by recourse to the gloss: νῦν γὰρ οὐχ ὁρῶ αὐτόν .
ἄν ] before ἐδώκ . is wanting in A B C D* F G à , 17, 47, Dam. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.: a grammatical addition.
Gal_4:17. ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς ] Elz. has ἐκκλ . ἡμᾶς , which is found only in a very few min., was introduced into the text by Beza,[172] and must be looked upon as an unnecessary conjecture.
Gal_4:18. τὸ ζηλοῦσθαι ] A C and four min., Damasc. have ζηλοῦσθαι merely (so Lachm.), while B à , and three min., Aeth. Vulg. Jer. Ambrosiast., read ζηλοῦσθε . The latter is an ancient error in transcribing, which involved the suppression of the article. The correct form ζηλοῦσθαι was restored, but the article, which seemed superfluous, was not recovered.
Gal_4:21. ἀκούετε ] D E F G, 10, 31, 80, Vulg. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have ἀναγινώσκετε . An ancient interpretation.
Gal_4:24. δύο ] Elz. has αἱ δύο , against decisive testimony.
Gal_4:25. Ἄγαρ ] is wanting in C F G à , 17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr. Epiph. Damasc. Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by Lachm. and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers Ἄγαρ to the Syriac Church, although it is attested by A B D E K L, and most min., Chrys., and others. But instead of γάρ , A B D E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have δέ . The juxtaposition of γὰρ Ἄγαρ led to the omission sometimes of the Ἄγαρ , and sometimes of the γάρ . After the latter was omitted, in a part of the witnesses the connection that was wanting was restored by δέ ; just as in the case of several, mostly more recent authorities, instead of γάρ after δουλεύει , δέ has crept in (so Elz.), because the argument of the apostle was not understood.
συστοιχεῖ δέ ] D* F G, Vulg. It. Goth., read ἡ συστοιχοῦσα ; D*, however, not having the article. A gloss, in order to exhibit the reference to Ἄγαρ in Gal_4:24.
Gal_4:26. ἡμῶν ] Elz. reads πάντων ἡμῶν ; Lachm. has bracketed πάντων . But it is wanting in B C* D E F G à , some min., most vss., and many Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.; defended by Reiche. An amplifying addition, involuntarily occasioned by the recollection of Gal_3:26; Gal_3:28, and the thought of the multitude of the τέκνα (Gal_4:27).
Gal_4:28. ἡμεῖς … ἐσμέν ) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch., read ὑμεῖς ἐστε , following B D F G, some min., Sahid. Aeth. Ir. Victorin. Ambr. Tychon. Ambrosiast. Justly; the first person was introduced on account of Gal_4:26; Gal_4:31.
Gal_4:30. κληρονομήσῃ ] Lachm. reads κληρονομήσει , following B D E à and Theophylact; from the LXX.
Gal_4:31. ἄρα ] A C, 23, 57, Copt. Cyr. Damasc. Jer. Aug., have ἡμεῖς δέ ; B D* E à , 67**, Cyr. Marcion, read διό . The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred; for ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀδελφοί is evidently a mechanical repetition of Gal_4:28 (Rec.), and ἄρα is too feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have ἀρα οὖν ).
[172] Beza himself allows that ὑμᾶς stands in all the codd. (in the fifth edition he adds: Latin), but considers that the sense requires ἡμᾶς .
CONTENTS.
Further discussion of the κληρονόμους εἶναι (Gal_3:29), as a privilege which could not have been introduced before Christ, while the period of nonage lasted, but was first introduced by means of Christ and Christianity at the time appointed by God, when the earlier servile relation was changed into that of sonship (Gal_4:1-7). After Paul has expressed his surprise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he may have laboured among them in vain (Gal_4:8-11), he entreats them to become like to him, and supports this entreaty by a sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love which they had manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to have been converted into enmity (Gal_4:12-16). He warns them against the selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted them (Gal_4:17), while at the same time he reproves their fickleness (Gal_4:18), and expresses the wish that he were now present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode of speaking to them, their lost confidence (Gal_4:18-20). Lastly, he refutes the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely by an allegorical interpretation of the account that Abraham had two sons, one by the bond-woman, and one by the free woman (Gal_4:21-30), and then lays down the proposition that Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in ch. 5. (Gal_4:31).