Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:16 - 4:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:16. Ὥστε ] Accordingly; the actual state of things which, to judge from the cooling down—which that painful question ( τίς οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν ;) bewails—in the self-sacrificing love depicted in Gal_4:14-15, must have superseded this love, and must now subsist.[198] The words contain a profoundly melancholy exclamation: “Accordingly, that is my position; I am become your enemy!” etc. So great a change has the relation, previously so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced by the fact that it is my business to speak the truth to you (mark the present participle ἀληθεύων ). This conduct which I pursue towards you, instead of confirming your inclination towards me and confidence in me, has taken them away; I have become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of interrogation after γέγονα , and then to take ἈΛΗΘ . ὙΜῖΝ as an exclamation (an enemy, who tells you the truth!), breaks up the passage without adequate ground. Utterly groundless, illogical, and unprecedented (for the ὥστε of an inferential sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the inversion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes out that ὭΣΤΕ Κ . Τ . Λ . is dependent on ΖΗΛΟῦΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς : “so that I am now your enemy, if I tell you truth, they court you;” it is the result of these courtings, that, when the apostle agreeably to the truth tells his converts (as in Gal_1:8 f.) what is to be thought about the teaching of his opponents (?), he thereby comes to stand as their enemy. In this interpretation the special reference of ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν is purely gratuitous. To explain the ὭΣΤΕ consecutivum with the indicative the simple rule is quite sufficient, that it is used de re facta; and the emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its betokening the quality of the preceding, to which the consecutivum refers. Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012: “Rem qualis sit, addita rei consequentis significatione definit.” Hofmann increases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by subsequently, in Gal_4:17, separating οὐ καλῶς from ΖΗΛΟῦΣΙΝ ὙΜᾶς , and looking upon these words as an opinion placed alongside of ὭΣΤΕ ἘΧΘΡ . ὙΜ . ΓΈΓ ., respecting this mode of courting. His interpretation thus presents at once a violent combination and a violent separation.
ἘΧΘΡῸς ὙΜῶΝ ] The context permits either the passive sense: hated by you (de Wette, Windischmann, and older expositors), or the active: your enemy (Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many others; also Rückert, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann); the latter, however, so taken that ἐχθρ . ὑμῶν γέγονα is said in accordance with the (altered) opinion of the readers. This active interpretation is to be preferred, because the usage among Greek authors (and throughout in the N.T. also) in respect to the substantive ἐχθρός with the genitive is decisive in its favour (Dem. 439. 19. 1121. 12; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 5, de venat. 13. 12; Soph. Aj. 554). From the time of Homer, ἐχθρός means hated only with the dative (Xen. Cyrop. v. 4. 50; Dem. 241. 12. 245. 16; Lucian, Sacrif. 1; Herodian. iii. 10. 6), which either stands beside it or is to be mentally supplied (Rom_5:10; Rom_11:28; Col_1:21).
γέγονα ] To what time does this change (having become), which by the perfect is marked as continuing, refer? It did not occur in consequence of the present epistle (Jerome, Luther, Koppe, Flatt, and others), for the Galatians had not as yet read it; nor at the first visit, for he had then experienced nothing but abundant love. It must therefore have taken place at the second visit (Act_18:23), when Paul found the Galatian churches already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with the truth could no longer praise them (for only ἐπαινέτης τοῦ δικαίου ἀληθεύει , Plat. Pol. ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled to blame their aberrations.
ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν ] For “veritas odium parit” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 40), and ὀργίζονται ἅπαντες τοῖς μετὰ παῤῥησίας τʼ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι (Lucian, Abdic. 7). As to ἀληθεύειν , to speak the truth, see on Eph_4:15.
[198] ὥστε cannot specify a reason, as Wieseler thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, explains: “For no other reason than because ye pronounced yourselves so happy on my account, am I (according to the representation of the false teachers) become your enemy,” etc. Wieseler therefore takes ὥστε , as if it had been διὰ τοῦτο .