Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:17 - 4:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:17. The self-seeking conduct of the Judaizing teachers (Gal_1:7), so entirely opposed to the ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν . The fact that they are not named is quite in keeping with the emotion and irritation of the moment; “nam solemus suppresso nomine de iis loqui, quos nominare piget ac taedet,” Calvin.
ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς ] that is, they exert themselves urgently to win you over to their side; they pay their court to you zealously. So, correctly, Erasmus, Castalio, Er. Schmid, Michaelis, and others, including Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, and Hofmann. For the contrast to the behaviour of the apostle harmonizes well with this sense; which is also accordant with linguistic usage, since ζηλόω with the accusative means to be zealous about a person or thing, and obtains in each case the more precise definition of its import from the context; Dem. 1402. 20. 500. 2; Pro_24:1; Wis_1:12; 1Co_12:31; and see Wetstein. Next to this interpretation comes that of Calvin, Beza, and others, including Rückert (comp. Vulgate: aemulantur): they are jealous of you (2Co_11:2; Sir_9:1). Taking it so, it would not be necessary to conceive of Paul and his opponents under the figure of wooers of the bride (the bridegroom being Christ; see on 2Co_11:2), of which nothing is suggested by the context; but it may be urged against this explanation, that ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε is not appropriate in the same sense. This remark also applies to the interpretation of Koppe and Reithmayr, following Ambrose, Jerome, and Theodoret: “they envy you (Act_7:9), are full of an envious jealousy of your freedom;” and to that of Chrysostom and Theophylact: they vie with you (comp. Borger); ζῆλος μέν ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὅταν τις ἀρετὴν μιμῆταί τινος , ζῆλος δὲ οὐ καλὸς , ὅταν τις σπεύδῃ ἐκβαλεῖν τῆς ἀρετῆς τὸν κατορθοῦντα (Theophylact). The factitive explanation: they make you to be zealous (Matthias), is opposed to linguistic usage, which only sanctions παραζηλόω , and not the simple verb, in this sense.
οὐ καλῶς ] not in a morally fair, honourable way, as would have been the case, if it had been done for your real good.
ἐκκλεῖσαι ] To exclude;[199] they desire to debar you; in this lies the wickedness of their ζῆλος . The question which arises here, and cannot be set aside (as Hofmann thinks): Exclude from what? is answered by the emphatic αὐτούς which follows, namely, from other teachers, who do not belong to their clique.[200] These “other teachers” are naturally those of anti-Judaizing views, and consequently Paul himself and his followers; but the hypothesis that Paul only is referred to (“a me meique communione,” Winer; so also Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, Michaelis, Rückert, Olshausen, Reiche, and others) is the less feasible, as the very idea of ἐκκλεῖσαι in itself most naturally points to a plurality, to an association. Since the αὐτούς which follows applies to the false teachers as teachers, we must not conceive the exclusion (with Borger and Flatt) as from the whole body of Christians, nor (with Schott) as from all Christians thinking differently; comp. Hilgenfeld: “from the Pauline church-union.” It is arbitrarily taken by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, as exclusion from the state of true knowledge; by Erasmus and Cornelius a Lapide, from Christian freedom; by Luther (1519), a Christo et fiducia ejus; by Matthies, from the kingdom of truth (comp. Ewald: from genuine Christianity); by Wieseler and Reithmayr, from the kingdom of heaven; by Matthias, from salvation by faith. All Interpretations of This nature would have needed some more precise definition. Koppe falls into a peculiar error: “a consuetudine et familiaritate sua arcere vos volunt” (Gal_2:12).
ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε ] As ἵνα is used here with the present indicative, it cannot mean in order that;[201] but must be the particle of place, ubi (Valckenaer, ad Herod, ix. 27: ἵνα δοκέει κ . τ . λ .). This ubi may, however, mean either: in which position of things ye are zealous for them (my former explanation), as in 1Co_4:6 (see on that passage, and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 839); or, in its purely local sense: “they wish to debar you there, where you are zealous for them,”—namely, in the Judaistic circle, in which it is they themselves who are zealously courted by you, whose favour you have to seek, etc. The latter view, as the simplest, is to be preferred. On the usual explanation of ἵνα as a particle of design, recourse is had to the assumption of an abnormal construction of degenerate Greek (Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others); or of a mistake on the part of the author or of the transcriber (Schott); or, with Fritzsche, to the reading ζηλῶτε (which only 113 and 219** have). But all these makeshifts are quite as arbitrary as the assumption of a faulty formation of mood (Rückert, Matthies). The interpretation of ἽΝΑ as ubi is based not on an “exaggerated philological precision,”[202] but on a linguistic necessity, to which the customary interpretation, yielding certainly a sense appropriate enough in itself, must give way, because the latter absolutely requires the subjunctive mood.
[199] Syr. translates includere, and consequently read ἐγκλεῖσαι . This would mean: they desire to include you in their circle, so that ye should not get free from them and come to associate with other teachers. Thus, in point of fact, the same sense would result as in the case of ἐκκλεῖσαι , only regarded from a different point of view. Fritzsche’s reference of ἐγκλ . to the legis Mos. carcerem is not suggested by the context. The reading is altogether so weakly attested, that it can only be looked upon as an ancient error of transcription.
[200] The wish expressed by Erasmus in his Annott.: “Utinam hodie nulli sint apud Christianos in quos competat haec Pauli querimonia!” is still but too applicable to the present day.
[201] ζηλοῦτε is not the Attic future (Jatho). See Winer, p. 72 [E. T. 88]; Buttmann, p. 33. In Thuc. ii. 8. 3, and iii. 58. 4, ἐλευθεροῦσι and ἐρημοῦτε are presents; see Krüger in loc.
[202] As Hilgenfeld thinks, who appeals in favour of ἵνα , ut, with the indicative to Clem. Hom. xi. 16: ἵνα μηδὲν τῶν προσκυνουμένων ὑπῆρχεν . This is certainly not “philological precision,” but inattention to linguistic fact; for in this Clementine passage the quite customary ἵνα , ut, is used with the indicative of the preterite, “quod tum fit, quando ponitur aliquid, quod erat futurum, si aliud quid factum esset, sed jam non est factum,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 630 f.; Herm. ad Viger. p. 850 f.; Kühner, II. § 778. With regard to the respective passages from Barnabas and Ignatius, in support of ἵνα with the present indicative, see on 1Co_4:6.