Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:13 - 4:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:13-14. Contrast to the preceding οὐδέν με ἠδικ . Comp. Chrysostom: “Ye have done nothing to injure me; but ye doubtless know, that I on account of weakness of the flesh preached the gospel to you the former time, and that ye,” etc.
διʼ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός ] The only correct explanation, because the only one agreeable to linguistic usage, is that adopted by Flatt, Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and others, also by Winer, Gramm. p. 373 [E. T. 499], on account of weakness of the flesh:[193] so that it is clear, that on Paul’s first journey through Galatia (Act_16:6) he was compelled by reason of bodily weakness to make a stay there, which properly did not form a part of his plan; and that during this sojourn, forced on him by necessity, he preached the gospel to the Galatians. How he suffered, and from what cause, whether from natural sickness (comp. 2Co_12:7),[194] or from ill-treatment which he had previously endured on account of the gospel (comp. Gal_6:17), we do not know. The mention of an involuntary or rather quite unpremeditated working among the Galatians is not opposed to the apostle’s aim (as Rückert objects), but favourable to it; because the love which received him so heartily and joyfully must have been all the greater, the less it depended on the duty of befitting gratitude for a benefit previously destined for the recipients, and for exertions made expressly on their account. Many others have understood διά as denoting the apostle’s condition: “amidst bodily weakness,” which is then referred by some, and indeed most expositors, following Chrysostom and Luther, to persecutions and sufferings, by others to his insignificant appearance (Calvin), by others to sickness (Rückert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald; comp. also in Jerome), and by others even to embarrassment and perplexity on account of the strange circumstances (Baumgarten-Crusius). But in this case διά must have been used with the genitive (see Matthiae, p. 1353; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 138); for expressions such as διὰ δῶμα , ΔΙᾺ ΝΎΚΤΑ , ΔΙᾺ ΣΤΌΜΑ , ΔΙʼ ΑἸΘΈΡΑ , Κ . Τ . Λ ., in which ΔΙΆ denotes stretching through, are merely poetical (see Schaefer, ad Mosch. 4. 91; Bernhardy, p. 236 f.; Kühner, II. p. 282). We should be obliged to think of the occasioning state (as in διὰ τοῦτο , ΔΙᾺ ΠΟΛΛΆ , Κ . Τ . Λ .), which would just bring us back to our interpretation. Hence we must reject also the explanation of Grotius: “per varios casus, per mille pericula rerum perrexi, ut vos instituerem.” Others still have gone so far as to refer ΔΙʼ ἈΣΘ . Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to weakness of the Galatians, to which Paul accommodated himself. So Jerome, Estius, Hug, and Rettig l.c. p. 108 ff.: “I have preached to you on account of the weakness of your flesh,” which is supposed to mean: “I have in my preaching had respect to the infirmity of your flesh.” Utterly mistaken: because Paul must necessarily have added a modal definition to εὐηγγ . (even if it had only been an ΟὝΤΩς ), or must have written ΚΑΤʼ ἈΣΘ . instead of ΔΙʼ ἈΣΘ .; moreover, ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΑΡΚΊ ΜΟΥ in Gal_4:14 shows that Paul meant the ἈΣΘΈΝΕΙΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to apply to himself.
τὸ πρότερον ] may mean either: earlier, at an earlier time, so that it would be said from the standpoint of the present (Thuc. i. 12. Galatians 2 : τὴν νῦν Βοιωτίαν , ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ ΔῈ ΚΑΔΜΗΐΔΑ ΓῆΝ ΚΑΛΟΥΜΈΝΗΝ , Isocr. de pace, § 121 and Bremi in loc.), which in relation to the past is the later time (Joh_6:62; Joh_7:51; Joh_9:8; 2Co_1:15; 1Ti_1:13; 1Pe_1:14; Heb_10:32; LXX. Deu_2:12; 1Ch_9:2; 1Ma_11:27); or the former time, so that the same fact (the preaching) took place twice (Heb_4:6; Heb_7:27). It is interpreted in the former sense by Usteri and Fritzsche, and in the latter by Koppe, Winer, Rückert, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, and others.[195] The latter is the correct view, so that τὸ πρότερον presupposes a second sojourn of the apostle among the Galatians. For if he had preached among them only once, τὸ πρότερον would have been quite an idle, superfluous addition. But Paul adds it just in order to denote quite distinctly his first visit, during which he founded the churches (Act_16:6): at his second visit (Act_18:23), the happy experiences which he had enjoyed τὸ πρότερον were not repeated in such full measure; the churches were already tainted by Judaism. Comp. Introd. § 2, 3. Fritzsche, indeed, maintains that Gal_4:18-19 imply that Paul before the composition of the epistle had only once visited the Galatians; but see on Gal_4:19.
[193] Bengel also translates correctly: “propter infirmitatem,” but erroneously explains that the weakness was not indeed “causa praedicationis ipsius,” but “adjumentum, cur P. efficacius praedicaret, cum Galatae facilius rejicere posse viderentur.” Similarly, but still more incorrectly, Schott, who detects an “acumen singulare” in Paul’s saying: “per ipsam aegritudinem carnis doctrinam divinam vobis tradidi;” for the fact that Paul, although sick, had preached very zealously, had been of great influence in making his preaching more successful. In this interpretation everything is mistaken: for διά must have been used with the genitive; the “ipsam” and the thought of successful preaching are quite gratuitously imported; and the whole of the alleged “acumen” would be completely out of place here, where Paul wishes to remind his readers of their love then shown to him, and not of the efficacy of his preaching.
[194] In respect to 2 Cor. l.c., Holsten, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1861, p. 250 f., conceives it to refer to epileptical disturbances of the circulatory and nervous system, such as occur among visionaries. Comp. his Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85.
[195] The older expositors, translating it jam pridem (Vulgate), or prius (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin), or antea (Castalio), do not for the most part attempt any more precise explanation. Luther: “for the first time.” Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact do not give any explanation of τὸ πρότ .