Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:12 - 4:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:12.[191] After this expression of anxiety, now follows the exhortation to return, and with what cordiality of affection! “Subito … ἤθη καὶ πάθη , argumenta conciliantia et moventia admovet,” Bengel.
γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγὼ , ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς ] is explained in two ways,—either as a summons to give up Judaistic habits, or as a summons to love. The correct interpretation is: “Become as I, become free from Judaism as I am, for I also have become as you; for I also, when I abandoned Judaism, thereby became as a Gentile (Gal_2:14; Php_3:7 f.), and placed myself on the same footing with you who were then Gentiles, by non-subjection to the Mosaic law. Now render to me the reciprocum, to which love has a claim.” So Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Neander, Fritzsche, de Wette, Hilgenfeld. This interpretation is not only in the highest degree suitable to the thoughtful delicacy of the apostle—who might justly (in opposition to Wieseler’s objection) represent his former secession from Judaism as a service rendered to his readers (as Gentiles), because he had in fact seceded to be a converter of the Gentiles—but is the only explanation in harmony with the words and the context. Ἐγενόμην must be supplied in the second clause, and to take it from γίνεσθε is just as allowable as in 1Co_11:1 (in opposition to Hofmann). Comp. Php_2:5; and see generally, Krüger, § lxii. 4. 1; Winer, p. 541 f. [E. T. 728]; Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 13: προερῶν ἅπερ αὐτῷ . As to κἀγώ , comp. on 1Co_11:1. Following Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact, Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Vatablus, Semler, and others, also Matthies, interpret: “Become as I, abandon Judaism; for I also was once a zealous adherent of it like you, but have undergone a change.” But as ἐγενόμην is the only supplement which suggests itself in harmony with the context, Paul must have written the ἤμην , which on this view requires to be supplied (as Justin. ad Graec. ii. p. 400. ed. Col. γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγὼ , ὅτι κἀγὼ ἤμην ὡς ὑμεῖς ), and this ἤμην would in that case have conveyed the main element of the motive (fui, nec amplius sum). But as Paul has written, the point of the passage lies in his desire that his readers should become like unto him, as he also had become like to the readers. Schott (comp. Rosenmüller and Flatt) correctly supplies ἐγενόμην , but he again supplies ἐγενέσθε with ὑμεῖς : “siquidem ego quoque factus sum, quales vos facti estis, cum Jesu Christo nomen daretis, abjeci studia pristina Judaismi pariter atque vos olim abjecistis.” Incorrectly, because this would presuppose that Paul was speaking to Jewish Christians, and because the motive, thus understood, could only have been of real avail as a motive in the event of Paul having been converted later than the Galatians. Jerome, Erasmus (in his Annotationes), Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Michaelis, Rückert, interpret: “Become as I, lay aside Judaism, for I also have lovingly accommodated myself to you;” comp. Wieseler: “Because I also, when I brought the gospel to you, from, a loving regard toward you Gentiles put aside Jewish habits” (Gal_2:14; 1Co_9:21). So also in substance Olshausen, Ellicott, Reithmayr, and others; similarly also Hofmann.[192] Against this view it may be urged, that, in Paul’s working as an apostle to the Gentiles, his non-Judaistic attitude was a matter of principle, and not a matter of considerate accommodation, and that long before he preached to the Galatians. Besides, the result would be a dissimilar relation between the two members; for Paul cannot require the putting away of Jewish habits as a matter of affectionate consideration, but only as a Christian necessity. The reciprocity of what is to be done under this aspect is the point of the demand. According to Ewald, Paul says, “As Christians, follow ye entirely my example, because I too am a simple Christian and, strictly speaking, not more than you.” But thus the very idea that was most essential (a simple Christian) would not be expressed. Others, including Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, and Morus, find the sense: “Love me, as I love you.” But how could the reader discover this in the words, since Paul has not yet said a word as to any deficiency of love to him? Beza and Grotius wrongly appeal to the mode of designating one who is beloved as an alter ego, an idea which ὡς ἐγώ and ὡς ὑμεῖς do not at all convey.
ἀδελφοὶ , δέομαι ὑμῶν ] The language of softened and deeply moved love. The words are to be referred not to the sequel (Luther, Zeger, Koppe, and others), in which there is nothing besought, but to the previous summons, with which he beseeches them to comply.
οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε ] suggests a motive for granting his entreaty γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ , by recalling their relation to him, as it had stood at the time when he first preached the gospel to them: “How should ye not grant me this entreaty, since ye have done no injury to me (and certainly therefore in this point just asked for, will not vex me by non-compliance); but ye know,” etc. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Windischmann, and others, including Winer, the words are intended to give an assurance that the previous severe language had not flowed from displeasure and irritation against his readers. But Paul has in fact already changed, immediately before, to the tone of love; hence such an assurance here would come in too late and inappropriately. Nor would the οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε , which on account of the connection with Gal_4:13 evidently applies to the period of his first visit, necessarily exclude a subsequent offence; so that the “igitur non habui, quod vobis irascerer” (Winer), which has been discovered in these words, is not necessarily implied in them. The temporal reference of the οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε , which is definitely and necessarily given by Gal_4:13, excludes also the view of Beza, Bengel, Rückert, Ewald, and others, that Paul represents the vexation occasioned to him by the relapse of his readers as having not occurred (“all was forgotten and forgiven,” Ewald), in order to encourage them by this meiosis to a compliance with the γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ . Lastly, those interpretations are incorrect, which, in spite of the enclitic με , lay an antithetic emphasis on the latter; as that of Grotius (“me privatim”), that of Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 109 (not me, but God and Christ), and that of Schott (nihil mihi nocuistis, vobis tantum). Nor is Hofmann’s view more correct: that Paul, taking occasion by a passage in the (alleged) epistle of his readers, desired only to say to them that the οὐδέν με ἠδικήσ . was not enough; instead of having merely experienced nothing unbecoming from them, he could not but expect more at their hands, for which reason they ought to recall what their attitude to him had been at his first visit to them. In this view what is supposed to form the train of thought is a purely gratuitous importation, with the fiction of a letter written by the Galatians superadded; and the assumed strong contrast to the sequel must have been marked by a μέν after οὐδέν (as to Plat. Rep. p. 398 A, Hartung, Partik. I. p. 163, forms a right judgment), or by ἀλλά instead of δέ , in order to be intelligible.
On ἀδικεῖν with accusative of the person and of the thing, comp. Act_25:10; Phm_1:18; Wolf, Lept. p. 343; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 6. 7.
[191] As to vv. 12–20, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 231 ff.
[192] According to Hofmann, Paul says of himself that he places himself on an equality with his Gentile readers (inasmuch as, where his vocation requires it, he lives among the Gentiles as if he were not a Jew), and, on the other hand, requires of them that they shall place themselves on an equality with him (and therefore shall not live after the Jewish manner, but shall share his freedom from the law, after he has accommodated himself to their position aloof from the law). Hofmann insists, namely, on the supplying of γίνομαι (present), which, as well as γίνεσθε , he understands in the sense of behaving and conducting themselves. This sense, however, is not suitable, since the readers are really to become different, and not merely to accommodate themselves to another line of conduct; the γίνεσθαι would not therefore retain the same sense in the two halves of the verse. See also, in opposition to this view, Möller on de Wette. The use of γίνεσθαι in the sense of se praestare is, however, in itself linguistically admissible (see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), but not in conformity with the proofs adduced by Hofmann; as to which Dissen, ad Dem. d. Cor. p. 239 f., takes the correct view.