Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:18 - 4:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:18. Paul knew that the state of things mentioned in Gal_4:17 was but too assuredly based upon reality. So long as he had been with them (on the first occasion, and still even during his short second visit), the Galatians had shown zeal in that which was good, viz. in the actual case: zeal for their apostle and his true gospel, as was their duty (consequently what was morally right and good). But after his departure this zeal veered round in favour of the Judaizing teachers and their doctrine. Hence the apostle continues, giving a gentle reproof, and for that reason expressing the first half of the sentence merely in a general form: “Good, however, is the becoming zealous in a good thing always, and not merely during my presence with you;” that is, “It is good when zealous endeavours are continuously applied in a good cause, and not merely,” etc. The chief emphasis rests on this πάντοτε with its antithesis. The special form, in which Paul has clothed his thought, arises from his inclination for deliberately using the same word in a modified shade of meaning (Rom_14:13; 1Co_3:17, et al.; comp. Wilke, Rhetor, p. 343 f.). But the very point of this mode of expression requires that ζηλοῦσθαι should not be taken in a sense essentially different from the correct view of it in Gal_4:17; consequently neither as invidiose tractari (Koppe), nor as to endure envy (Rückert), which, besides, cannot be conveyed by the simple passive. In Usteri’s view, Paul intends to say, “How much was I not the object of your ζῆλος (zeal and interest), when I was with you! But if it should cease again so soon after my departure from you, it must have lost much of its value.” But the very καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς plainly shows that Paul did not conceive himself as the object of the ζηλοῦσθαι ; in order to be understood, he must have added this με to ζηλοῦσθαι , since there was no previous mention of himself as the object of the ζῆλος . This objection also applies to the view of Reiche, although the latter takes it more distinctly and sharply: “Bonum, honestum et salutare (Gal_6:9; 1Co_7:1; 1Th_5:21), vero est, expeti aliorum studio et amore, modo et consilio honesto, ἐν καλῷ (conf. 2Co_11:2; Θωοῦ ζήλῳ ), idque continuo ac semper πάντοτε , nec tantum praesente me inter vos.” But ἐν καλῷ [203] cannot mean “modo et consilio honesto” (this is expressed by καλῶς in Gal_4:17); it denotes the object of the ζηλοῦσθαι , and that conceived of as the sphere in which the ζηλοῦσθαι takes place. Schott interprets, unsuitably to the καὶ μὴ μόνον κ . τ . λ . which follows: “Laudabile est, quovis tempore appeti vel trahi ad partes alicujus, si agitur de bono et honesto colendo.” So also, in substance, de Wette, with relation to the passive demeanour of the Galatians, and with an extension of the idea of the verb: “It is, however, beautiful to be the object of zealous attention in what is good,” by which are indicated the qualities and advantages on account of which people are admired, loved, and courted.[204] Similarly Ewald: “It is beautiful to be the object of zealous love in what is beautiful,” ζηλοῦσιν and ΖΗΛΟῦΤΕ in Gal_4:17 being understood in a corresponding sense. But this interpretation also does not harmonize with the ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΜΌΝΟΝ Κ . Τ . Λ . which follows; and hence Ewald changes the idea of ΖΗΛΟῦΣΘΑΙ into that of being worthy of love, and consequently into the sense of ζηλωτὸν εἶναι . Hofmann over-refines and obscures the correct apprehension of the passage, by bringing Gal_4:18, in consequence of his erroneous reference of ὭΣΤΕ ἘΧΘΡῸς Κ . Τ . Λ . (see on Gal_4:16), into connection with this sentence, considering the idea to be: “Just as his person had formerly been the object of their affection, it ought to have remained so, instead of his now being their enemy in consequence of the self-seeking solicitude with which his opponents take pains about them if he speaks to them the truth. For in his case the morally good had been the ground, on account of which he had been the object of their loving exertion,” etc. The earlier expositors,[205] as also Olshausen and Matthias (the latter in keeping with his factitive interpretation of the active), mostly take ζηλοῦσθαι as middle, in sense equivalent to ζηλοῦν , with very different definitions of the meaning,[206] but inconsistently with the usus loquendi.
[203] Ἐν καλῷ , used adverbially, means either at the fit time (Plat. Pol. ix. p. 571 B; Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 5) or at the suitable place (Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 25), and in general, fitly (see Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 643), but does not occur in the N.T.
[204] Theophylact (comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret) has evidently understood the passage substantively, just as de Wette: τοῦτο αἰνίττεται , ὡς ἄρα ζηλωτοὶ ἦσαν πᾶσιν ἐπὶ τῇ τελειότητι . Linguistically unobjectionable. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 19: ἐπαινομένους κ . ζηλουμένους ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων . Sympos. 4. 45; Hiero, 1. 9; Eur. Alc. 903; Soph. El. 1016; Aesch. Pers. 698; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 C, ζηλωτὸς ὢν καὶ εὐδαιμονιζόμενος . See generally, Blomf. Gloss. Aesch. Prom. 338; Pierson, ad Moer. p. 169.
[205] Not all. The learned Grotius has evidently understood it passively: “Rectum erat, ut semper operam daretis, ut ego a vobis amari expeterem; est enim hoc amari honestum.” Also Michaelis (comp. Er. Schmidt): “It is good when others court our favour.” Both interpretations come very near to that of Usteri.
[206] Erasmus, Paraphr.: “Vidistis me legis ceremonias negligere, nihil praedicare praeter Christum, aemulabamini praesentem. Si id rectum erat, cur nunc absente me vultis alios aemulare in iis, quae recta non sunt?” Luther, 1524: “Bonum quidem est aemulari et imitari alios, sed hoc praestate in re bona semper, nunquam in mala, non tantum me praesente, sed etiam absente.” Comp. Calvin: “Imitari vel eniti ad alterius virtutem.” Beza: “At noster amor longe est alius; vos enim bonam ob causam non ad tempus, sed semper, non solum praesens, sed etiam absens absentes vehementissime complector.” Locke ( ἐν καλῷ masculine): “Vos amabatis me praesentem tanquam bonum, fas itaque est idem facere in absentem.” Bengel: “Zelo zelum accendere, zelare inter se.” Morus: “Laudabile autem est, sectari praeceptorem in re bona semper, neque solum,” etc.; substantially, therefore, as Erasmus. Others interpret in various ways. Olshausen: “Paul desires to make known that he finds the zeal of the Galatians in itself very praiseworthy, and certainly would not damp it; and he therefore says, that the being zealous is good if it takes place on account of a good cause, and is maintained not merely in his presence, but also in his absence.” So already Calovius and others.