Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:20 - 4:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:20. As to the connection of thought of the δέ with Gal_4:18, see on Gal_4:18.
ἤθελον ] namely, if the thing were possible. Comp. Rom_9:3; Act_25:22. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 235; Kühner, II. p. 68; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 245.
ἄρτι ] just now, presently (see on Gal_1:9), has the emphasis.
ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν μου ] The emphasis is on ἀλλάξαι . But in harmony with the context (see Gal_4:16; Gal_4:18, and the foregoing ἄρτι ), this changing can only refer to the second visit of the apostle to the Galatians, not to the language now employed in his letter, as many expositors think.[208] Erroneously, therefore—and how sharply in opposition to the previous affectionate address!
Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wetstein, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof. Hofmann also erroneously holds that Paul means the (in oral expression) more chastened tone of a didactic statement—aiming at the bringing the readers back from their error—after the strongly excited style in which, since the word θαυμάζω in Gal_1:6, he had urged his readers, as one who had already been almost deprived of the fruit of his labours. As if Paul had not previously, and especially from Gal_3:6 to Gal_4:7, written didactically enough; and as if he had not also in the sequel (see immediately, Gal_4:21, and chap. 5 and 4 down to the abrupt dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough! The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that Paul has hitherto been answering a letter of the Galatians, and has just at this point come to the end of it, is nothing but a groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace of such a letter to be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the second time in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy (Gal_4:16): hence he wishes to be now with them, and to speak to them with a voice different from what he had then used, that is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle tone.[209] By this, of course, he means not any deviation in the substance of his teaching from the ἀληθεύειν (Gal_4:16), but a manner of language betokening tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying affection, which is ready and willing, in the service of the cause and for the salvation of the persons concerned, to change form and tone, although retaining φωνὰν ψευδέων ἀγνωστόν (Pind. Ol. vi. 112). The latter was a matter of course in the case of a Paul, willingly though he became all things to all men; comp. on 1Co_9:22. Many other expositors, as Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, understand it as: to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with tenderness and affection to one, with severity and censure to another. Comp. Corn. a Lapide: “ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blandirer, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos.” But this cannot be expressed by the mere ἀλλάξαι τ . φ ., which without addition means nothing more than to change the voice (comp. ἀλλάττειν χώραν , Plat. Parm. p. 139 A; εἶδος , Eur. Bacch. 53; χρῶμα , Eur. Phoen. 1252; στολάς , Gen_35:2), that is, to assume another voice, to let oneself be heard otherwise, not differently. See Artem. ii. 20, iv. 56; Dio Chrysostom, lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom_1:23; Wis_4:11; Wis_12:10; frequently in the LXX. Paul must have added either a more precise definition, such as εἰς πολλοὺς τρόπους , εἰς μορφὰς πλείονας (Lucian, Vit. Auct. 5), or at least some such expression as πρὸς τὴν χρείαν (Act_28:10), πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (1Co_12:7), πρὸς διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ (Heb_5:14). Fritzsche incorrectly interprets it: to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that ye are listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul. What a strange, unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the thoughtful manner of the apostle! According to Wieseler, the sense intended is: to exchange my speaking with you; that is, to enter into mutual discourse with you, in order most surely to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this view “with you” is a pure interpolation, although it would be essentially requisite to the definition of the sense; and ἀλλάσσειν λόγους , to say nothing of ἀλλ . φωνήν , is never so used. What Wieseler means is expressed by ἀμείβεσθαί τινα λόγοις (Hom. Od. iii. 148, et al.), προσδιαλέγεσθαί τινι (Plat. Theaet. p. 161 B), συζητεῖν τινι , or πρός τινα (Act_6:9; Luk_22:23), λόγους ἀντιβάλλειν πρός (Luk_24:17), δοῦναί τε καὶ ἀποδέξασθαι λόγον (Plat. Rep. p. 531 E).
ὅτι ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν ] justifies the wish of ἀλλάξαι τὴν φων . μου . The usual interpretation is the correct one: I am perplexed about you; ἐν ὑμῖν is to be taken as in the phrase θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν , 2Co_7:16, so that the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the readers, dependent on their condition as its cause (comp. also Gal_1:24). The perplexity consists in this, that he at the time knows no certain ways and means by which he shall effect their re-conversion (Gal_4:19); and this instils the wish ( ὅτι ) that he could now be present with them, and, in place of the severe tone which at the preceding visit had had no good effect (Gal_4:16), could try the experiment of an altered and milder tone. The form ἀποροῦμαι is, moreover (comp. ἀπορηθείς , Dem. 830. 2, and ἀπορηθήσεται , Sir_18:7), to be taken passively (as a middle form with a passive signification), so that the state of the ἀπορεῖν is conceived of as produced on the subject, passively (Schoemann, ad Isaeum, p. 192). Fritzsche, l.c. p. 257, holds the sense to be: “Nam haeretis, quo me loco habeatis, nam sum vobis suspectus.” Thus ἐν ὑμῖν would be among you, and ἀποροῦμαι : I am an object of perplexity, according to the well-known Greek use of the personal passive of intransitive verbs (Bernhardy, p. 341; Kühner, II. p. 34 f.). Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac. xiii. 7: ὥστε τῶν δεομένων γίγνεσθαι οὐδὲν ἀπορεῖται , Plat. Soph. p. 243 B, Legg. vii. p. 799 C. But the sense: “sum vobis suspectus” is interpolated, and there is no ground for deviating from the use of ἀποροῦμαι throughout the N.T. (2Co_4:8; Luk_24:4; Act_25:20; Joh_13:22); as, indeed, the idea “sum vobis suspectus” cannot give any suitable motive for the wish of the ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν , unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous interpretation of ἀλλάξαι . To disconnect (with Hofmann) ἐν ὑμῖν from ἀποροῦμαι , and attach it to ἀλλάξ . τ . φωνήν μου , would yield an addition entirely superfluous after παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς , and leave ἀποροῦμαι without any more precise definition of its bearing. And the proposal to attach ὅτι ἀπορ . ἐν ὑμῖν as protasis to the following λέγετέ μοι (Matthias) would have the effect of giving to the λέγ . μοι , which stands forth sternly and peremptorily, an enfeebling background.
[208] So also Zachariae (who is followed by Flatt): “to lay aside my present mournful language, and to adopt that of tenderness and contentment.” In this case Paul must have used δύνασθαι ; for unless his readers had improved in their conduct, it would have been impossible for him to speak contentedly. Bengel, in opposition to the idea of ἀλλάξαι : “molliter scribit, sed mollius loqui vellet.” Jerome explained the passage as referring to the exchange of the vox epistolica for the vivus sermo of actual presence, which might have more effect in bringing them back ad veritatem.
[209] Not exactly weeping, as Chrysostom thinks: ποιῆσαι καὶ δακρύα καὶ πάντα εἰς θρῆνον ἐπισπάσασθαι .