Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:25 - 4:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:25. The ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ , just said, has now a reason assigned for it, from the identity of the name “Hagar” with that of Mount Sinai. Τὸ γὰρ Ἄγαρ … Ἀραβίᾳ , however, is not to be placed in a parenthesis, because neither in the construction nor in a logical point of view does any interruption occur; but with συστοιχεῖ δέ a new sentence is to be commenced. “This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history—a fact which is confirmed by the similarity of the name of this woman with the Arabian designation of Mount Sinai. Not of a different nature, however,—to indicate now the corresponding relation, according to which no characteristic dissimilarity may exist between this woman and the community belonging to the Sinaitic covenant, because otherwise that ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ would be destitute of inner truth—not of a different nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the latter is, as Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who belong to it.” This paraphrase at the same time shows what importance belongs to the position of συστοιχεῖ at the head of the sentence.
τὸ γὰρ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστιν ἐν τ . Ἀραβ .] That the name Hagar ( τὸ Ἄγαρ denotes this; see Eph_4:9; Kühner, II. p. 137) accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai, could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in support of his ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ . Comp. Joh_9:6.
He now writes Σινᾶ ὄρος , and not ὄρος Σινᾶ as in Gal_4:24, because Ἄγαρ and Σινᾶ are intended to stand in juxtaposition on account of the coincidence of the two names. In Arabic means lapis; and although no further ancient evidence is preserved that the Arabs called Sinai κατʼ ἐξοχήν the stone,[214] yet Chrysostom in his day says that in their native tongue the name Sinai was thus interpreted; and indeed Büsching, Erdbeschr. V. p. 535, quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller that the Arabs still give the name Hadschar to Mount Sinai,—a statement not supported by the evidence of any other travellers. Perhaps it was (and is) merely a provincial name current in the vicinity of the mountain, easily explained from the granitic nature of the peaks (Robinson, I. p. 170 f.), with which also the probable signification of the Hebrew ñÄéðÇé , the pointed (see Knobel on Ex. p. 190), harmonizes,[215] and which became known to the apostle, if not through some other channel previously, by means of his sojourn in Arabia (Gal_1:17). Comp. also Ewald, p. 495; Reiche, p. 63. It is true that the name of Hagar ( äÈâÈø ) does not properly correspond with the word ÌÑ ( çâø ), but with åÌÑ fugit; but the allegorizing interpretation of names is too little bound to literal strictness not to find the very similarity of the word and the substantial resemblance of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have still stronger and bolder examples in Mat_2:23, Joh_9:6. Beza, Calvin, Castalio, Estius, Wolff, and others, interpret, “for Hagar is a type of Mount Sinai in Arabia;”[216] but against this view the neuter τὸ Ἄγαρ is decisive.
ἘΝ ἈΡΑΒΊᾼ ] not in Arabia situm (Schott and older expositors)—for how idle would be this topographical remark[217] in the case of a mountain so universally known!—nor equivalent to ἀραβιστί , so that ἈΡΑΒ . would be an adjective and ΔΙΑΛΈΚΤῼ would have to be supplied (Matthias); but: in Arabia the name Hagar signifies the Mount Sinai.[218] So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther (“for Agar means in Arabia the Mount Sinai”), Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reithmayr, and others.
συστοιχεῖ ] The subject is, as Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar, not Mount Sinai (Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom and his followers, Thomas, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and others; also Hofmann now),—a view which runs entirely counter to the context, according to which the two women are the subjects of the allegorical interpretation, while τὸ γὰρ Ἄγαρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστιν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβ . was merely a collateral remark by way of confirmation. Incorrectly also Studer and Usteri, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius (also Hofmann formerly), Windischmann, Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ , the Sinaitic constitution. In this way there would be brought out no comparison at all between the subject of συστοιχεῖ and the present Jerusalem; and yet such, according to the signification of συστοιχεῖν (see afterwards), there must necessarily be, so that in δουλεύει γάρ κ . τ . λ . lies the tertium comparationis. The Sinaitic διαθήκη is not of a similar nature with the present Jerusalem, but is itself the constitution of it; on that very account, however, according to the allegorical comparison Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem. συστοιχεῖν means to stand in the same row (see Polyb. x. 21. 7, and Wetstein); that is, here, to stand in the same category ( συστοιχία , Aristot. Metaph. i. 5, pp. 986, 1004), to be of the same nature and species, σύστοιχον εἶναι (Theophr. c. pl. vi. 4. 2; Arist. Meteor, i. 3; Lucian, q. hist. conscr. 43). Consequently: Hagar belongs to the same category with the present Jerusalem, is of a like nature with it (comp. Polyb. xiii. 8. Galatians 1 : ὅμοια καὶ σύστοιχα ), has in common with it the same characteristic relation, in so far namely that, as Hagar was a bond-woman, the present Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage. See below. Thus συστ . expresses the correspondence. But it is incorrect to take it as: she confronts as parallel (Rückert, Winer).[219] This must have been expressed by ἀντιστοιχεῖ (Xen. Symp. 2. 20, Anab. v. 4. 12; comp. ἀντίστοιχος , Eur. Andr. 746, and ἀντιστοιχία , Plut. Mor. p. 474 A). Many of those who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) interpret: “it extends as far as Jerusalem” (Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, and others). This would have to be more exactly defined with Genebrardus, ad Psa_133:3, following out the literal meaning of the word συστοιχεῖ : “perpetuo dorso sese versus Sionis montes exporrigit.” But even granting the geographical reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai is not the subject, Paul must have named, instead of τῇ νῦν Ἱερονσ ., Mount Zion. Hofmann, in reference to the position of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem in the land of promise, interprets the expression locally indeed, but as indicative of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs to the same category with the mountain although Arabian, which has it side by side on the same line in the order of the history of salvation. An artificial consequence of the geographical contrast introduced as regards ἐν Ἀραβ ., as well as of the erroneous assumption that Mount Sinai is the subject. At the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if Paul had written ΣΥΣΤΟΙΧΕῖ ΔῈ ΑὐΤῷ Ἡ ΝῦΝ ἹΕΡΟΥΣ .
Τῇ ΝῦΝ ἹΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΉΜ ] does not stand in contrast to the former Salem (Erasmus, Michaelis), but in Paul’s view means the present Jerusalem belonging to the pre-Messianic period, as opposed to ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσ . (ver 26), which after the ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ will take its place. See on Gal_4:26. Moreover, the present Jerusalem and its children (“inhabitants;” see Mat_23:37, Psa_149:2) represent the Israelitic commonwealth and its members. Comp. Isa_40:2.
δουλεύει γὰρ κ . τ . λ .] namely, to the Mosaic law. The bondage to Rome (Pelagius) is not, according to the context, referred to either alone (Castalio, Ewald) or jointly (Bengel). The subject is ἡ νῦν Ἱερουσ ., and not ἌΓΑΡ (Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others). Looking at the usage both of classical authors and the N.T., there is nothing surprising in the change of subject (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787 f.]). Lachmann (also Ewald) has incorrectly placed the words δουλεύει … αὐτῆς in a parenthesis.
[214] We may add that ÌÑ occurs elsewhere as a geographical proper name in Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr. always gives the name çâøà to the wilderness called in the Hebr. ùÑåÌø . As to the town ÌÑ , which is, however, to be pronounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on account of its too remote site, cannot come into consideration here (in opposition to Grotius and others), see Ewald, p. 493 f., and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290.
[215] As to the mineralogical beauty of the mountain, see Fraas, Aus d. Orient geolog. Beobacht. 1867.
[216] At the same time Calvin and others remark on ἐν Ἀραβίᾳ : “hoc est extra limites terrae sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae haereditatis.” This reference is also discovered by Wieseler, who, with Lachmann, reads only τὸ γ . Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τ . Ἀραβ ., “for the Sinai mountain lies beyond the Holy Land, and indeed in Arabia, where also the alien Hagar is at home.” In his view, Paul meant to say that, through their alien nature, the Sinaitic διαθήκη and Hagar showed themselves to answer to each other,—namely, as intervenient elements in the history of salvation. But this Paul has not said; the substance of it would have to be read between the lines. How very natural it would have been for him at least to have written, instead of or in addition to ἑν τ . Ἀραβ ., ἴξω (or μακρὰν ἀπό ) τῆς γῆς Χαναάν , in order thus at least to give some intimation that the alien character was the point! This also applies against the view of Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the reading omitting Ἄγαρ , and agrees in substance with Wieseler’s explanation, taking Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and Arabia as contrast to the land of promise. Comp. also, in opposition to this exposition, which imports elements wholly gratuitous, Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 239.
[217] Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought into an antithetical relation to συστοιχεῖ δέ (the Mount Sinai is indeed situated in Arabia, but corresponds, etc.), as if it were accompanied by a μέν (and with the adoption of Lachmann’s reading); for in this case the allegorical signification of the Hagar would not be based on any ground.
[218] Observe that the apostle does not at all wish to say that Hagar is in the Arabic language generally the name of Sinai; but, on the contrary, by ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ , he characterizes that name as a name used in the country, provincial. Hofmann unjustly finds in the words according to our reading “absurdity.”
[219] Comp. also Wieseler: “corresponds to it; not, however, at a like, but at a different stage,” whereby the idea of a type is expressed. This view is not to be supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where συζυγοῦντας καὶ συστοιχοῦντας διαμένειν means to remain in rank and file (“servare ordines secundum παραστάτας et ἐπιβάτας ,” Schweighäuser), so that as well the συζυγοῦντες as the συστοιχοῦντες always form one row with one another.
Note.
If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, τὸ γ . Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τ . Ἀραβ ., be adopted, the interpretation would simply be: “for the Sinai-Mount is in Arabia;” so that ἐν τῇ Ἀραβ . would serve to support the allegorical relation of Hagar to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ancestress of the Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support much too vague, and not befitting the dialectic acuteness of the apostle. In the case of the Recepta also, ἐν τῇ Ἀραβ ., taken as a geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that Schott’s uncritical conjecture, treating the words τὸ γ . Ἄγ . ὄρ . Σ . ἐ . ἐν τ . Ἀραβ . as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is followed by Mill, Proleg. § 1306, even wished to retain nothing of the passage but τὸ δὲ Ἄγαρ συστοιχεῖ τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσ . κ . τ . λ . Against the interpretation of ἐν τῇʼ Αραβ . by Wieseler and Hofmann, see above.