Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:24 - 4:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:24. Ἅτινα ] quippe quae, quae quidem, taking up the recorded facts under the point of view of a special quality.
ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα ] are of allegorical import. The word ἀλληγορεῖν , not occurring elsewhere in the N.T., means ἄλλο ἀγορεύειν , so to speak (to set forth, to relate), that another sense is expressed than the words convey; which further meaning lies concealed behind the immediate meaning of what is said. Hesychius: ἀλληγορία ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ ἀκουόμενον ὑποδεικνύουσα . Comp. Quinctil. viii. 6; see Plut. Mor. p. 363 D, Athen. ii. p. 69 C; Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 420 B; Joseph. Antt. prooem. 4. In the passive: to have an allegorical meaning,[211] Schol. Soph. Aj. 186; Porph. Pyth. p. 185; Philo, de Cherub. I. p. 143; and see generally, Wetstein.[212] The understanding of the O.T. history in an allegoric sense was, as is well known, extremely prevalent among the later Jews. Synops. Sohar. p. 25. Galatians 1 : “Quicunque dicit narrationes legis alium non habere sensum, quam illius tantum historiae, istius crepet spiritus.” See generally, Döpke, Hermeneut. I. p. 104 ff.; Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. I. i. p. 68 ff. But on account of the Rabbinical training in which Paul had been brought up (comp. Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 369 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 295 f.), and on account of his truthful character, nothing else can be assumed than that he himself was convinced that what he related contained, in addition to its historical sense, the allegorical import set forth by him; so that he did not intend to give a mere argumentum κατʼ ἄνθρωπον , but ascribed to his allegory the cogency of objective proof. Hence he has raised it into the keystone of his whole antinomistic reasoning, and has so earnestly introduced (Gal_4:21) and carried it out, that we cannot hold (with Schott) that it was intended to be an argumentum secundarium, quod insuper accederet. But in the view of a faith not associated with Rabbinical training, the argument wholly falls to the ground as a real proof (Luther says that it is “too weak to stand the test”);[213] while the thing proved is none the less established independent of the allegory, and is merely illustrated by it. “Nothing can be more preposterous than the endeavours of interpreters to vindicate the argument of the apostle as one objectively true.” Baur, Paulus, II. p. 312, ed. 2.
αὗται ] namely, Hagar and Sarah; for see afterwards ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ . Hence not equivalent to ταῦτα , sc. τὰ ἀλληγορούμενα (Calovius and others), as is assumed, in order not to admit here an εἶναι σημαντικόν .
εἰσι ] namely, allegorically, and so far = signify. Comp. Mat_13:20; Mat_13:38, et al.
δύο διαθῆκαι ] two covenants, not: institutions, declarations of will (Usteri), or generally “arrangements connected with the history of salvation” (Hofmann), any more than in Gal_3:15. The characteristic of a covenant, that there must be two parties, existed actually in the case of the διαθῆκαι (God and the men, who were subject to the law,
God and the men, who believe in Christ). Comp. 1Co_11:25
μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ ] One proceeding from Mount Sinai, which was instituted on Mount Sinai, and therefore issues from it. Instead of ἀπό , the mere genitive might have been used (Bernhardy, p. 223), but the former is more definite and descriptive. The μέν is without any corresponding δέ (Kühner, II. p. 430), for in none of the cases where δέ subsequently occurs is it correlative to this μέν . In point of fact the contrast anticipated in μία μέν certainly follows in Gal_4:26, but not in conjunction with μέν ; see what is said on Gal_4:26.
εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα ] bringing forth unto bondage, that is, placing those who belong to this covenant, by means of their so belonging, in a state of bondage, namely, through subjection to the Mosaic law. See Gal_4:1 ff. The notion of a mother has caused the retention of the figurative expression γεννῶσα .
ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ ] ἥτις , quippe quae, is neither predicate (Bengel) nor attributive definition (as that διαθήκη , which Hagar is; so Hofmann), as if it were written Ἄγαρ οὖσα ; but it is the subject, just as ἅτινα and αὗται , and also ἥτις in Gal_4:26. The name, not as yet expressed, is now emphatically added. The Sinaitic covenant is that which Hagar is in the history referred to—is allegorically identical with Hagar.
[211] Not: to be the object of allegorical conception (Hofmann). The allegorical sense is à priori contained and given in the facts which stand recorded; they have, contained in them, the allegorical import which is only exhibited by the explanation. If ἐστιν ἀλληγ . were to be taken, not in the sense of being expressed, but in that of being conceived as such, which is certainly found in Plutarch, Synesius, and elsewhere, Paul must have written ἀλληγορεῖται , or the verbal adjective ἁλληγορητέος . Moreover, ἀλληγορεῖν is related to αἰνίττεσθαι as species to genus; but Hofmann arbitrarily asserts that the latter requires for its interpretation wit, the former understanding. Αἰνίττεσθαι includes every obscure or veiled discourse (Herod. v. 56; Plat. Rep. p. 332 B, and frequently; Soph. Aj. 1137; Eur. Ion. 430; Lucian, V. H. i. 2), whether it be in an allegorical form or not, and whether it require wit or not.
[212] In the older Greek, allegory was termed ὑπόνοια (see Plut. de aud. poet. p. 19 E), Plato, de Rep. p. 378 D; Xen. Symp. 3. 6; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 200 f.).
[213] We must be on our guard against confounding the idea of the allegory with that of the type (1Co_10:6; 1Co_10:11; Rom_5:14; comp. Heb_9:24; 1Pe_3:21), as Calvin and many others have done: “a familia Abrahae similitudo ducitur ad ecclesiam; quemadmodum enim Abrahae domus tunc fuit vera ecclesia, ita minime dubium est, quin praecipui et prae aliis memorabiles eventus, qui in ea nobis contigerunt, nobis totidem sint typi.” Also Tholuck (d. A. T. im N. T. p. 39, ed. 6) and Wieseler understand ἀλληγορούμενα as equivalent to τυπικῶς λεγόμενα . But even Philo, de opif. m. I. p. 38. 10, puts the type not as equivalent, but only as similar to the allegory; and Josephus, Antt. prooem 4, speaks of Moses as speaking in a partly allegorical sense, without intimating that he intended historical types. The allegory and the type are contrasted on the one hand with that which is only πλάσματα μύθων , and on the other hand with that which is said ἐξ εὐθείας (directly, expressly). But neither does a type necessarily rest on allegorical interpretation, nor does the allegory necessarily presuppose that what is so interpreted is a type; the two may be independent one of the other. Thus, e.g., the allegory of the name of Hagar, in Philo, Alleg. II. p. 135. 29, is anything but typology. See the passages themselves in Wetstein. At any rate, the allegory has a much freer scope, and may be handled very differently by different people; “potest alius aliud et argutius fingere et veri cum similitudine suspicari; potest aliud tertius, potest aliud quartus, atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum opinantium qualitates, ita singulae res possunt infinitis interpretationibus explicari.” Arnobius. The type is a real divine preformation of a N.T. fact in the O. T. history. Comp. on Rom_5:14; also Tholuck, l.c. p. 47 ff. But one fact signifies another allegorically, when the ideal character of the latter is shown as figuratively presenting itself in the former; in which case the significant fact needs not to be derived from the O. T., and the interpretations may be very various. Comp. Kleinschmidt in the Mecklenb. theol. Zeitschr. 1861, p. 859. Matthias, in the interpretation of our passage, abides by the wider idea of “figure;” but this does not satisfy the strict idea of the allegorical, so far as this is the expression of an inner, deeper significance,—of an ἑτέρως νοούμενον .