Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:27 - 4:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:27. Proof from Scripture[221] that no other than this, the free Jerusalem ( ἥτις ), is our mother. This, namely, is according to Paul the subject addressed, the unfruitful one, because Sarah—who, according to the allegory, answers to the heavenly Jerusalem—was, as is well known, barren. The historical sense of the prophecy (Isa_54:1, exactly according to the LXX.) is the joyful promise of a great increase to the depressed people of God in its state of freedom after the Babylonian exile. The desolate, uninhabited Jerusalem, which had become like an unfruitful wife, is summoned to rejoice, because it—and in this light, certainly, it is poetically compared with itself as a second person (in opposition to Hofmann)—is to become more populous, more rich in children, than formerly, when it was the husband-possessing spouse (of Jehovah). The fulfilment of this Messianic prophecy
Messianic because pervaded by the idea of the victorious theocracy—is discerned by Paul in the great new people of God, which belongs to the ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ , to this Sarah in the sense of the fulfilment, as its mother. Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, this heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless; it was ΣΤΕῖΡΑ , Οὐ ΤΊΚΤΟΥΣΑ , ΟὐΚ ὨΔΊΝΟΥΣΑ , ἜΡΗΜΟς (solitaria, that is, in conformity with the contrast: without conjugal intercourse), consequently quite the Sarah of the allegory, before she became the mother of Isaac. But in and with the emergence of the Christian people of God, the ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ has become a fruitful mother, rejoicing over her wealth of children, richer in children than Ἡ ΝῦΝ ἹΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΉΜ , this mother of the ancient people of God, which hitherto, like Hagar, had been áÀòåÌìÈä , Ἡ ἜΧΟΥΣΑ ΤῸΝ ἌΝΔΡΑ . This ἈΝΉΡ is God (not the law, as Luther interprets), whose relation to the theocratical commonwealth of the old covenant is conceived as conjugal intercourse. In virtue of this idea, the relation of God to the ΝῦΝ ἹΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΉΜ —the latter regarded as a woman Ἡ ἜΧΟΥΣΑ ΤῸΝ ἌΝΔΡΑ —is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham to the ΠΑΙΔΊΣΚΗ Hagar, whose descendants came into life ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ . On the other hand, the relation of God to the ἌΝΩ ἹΕΡΟΥΣΑΛΉΜ —the latter likewise regarded as a woman, who, however, had hitherto been ΣΤΕῖΡΑ Κ . Τ . Λ .—is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham to the free Sarah, whose far more numerous descendants were children of promise (Gal_4:28). Comp. Rom_9:8.
Ἡ Οὐ ΤΊΚΤΟΥΣΑ ] not for the past participle (Grotius and others), but expressing the state of the case as it stands: “which does not bear,” the consequence of στεῖρα , sterilis, unfruitful, as Sara was òÂ÷ÈøÈä . In the same way afterwards, Ἡ ΟὐΚ ὨΔΊΝΟΥΣΑ .
ῬῆΞΟΝ ] ΦΩΝΉΝ is usually supplied. For many instances of ῥήγνυμι φωνήν or αὐδήν (Eur. Suppl. 710), to unchain the voice, that is, to speak aloud, see Wetstein, in loc.; Loesner, Obss. p. 333; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 385, XI. p. 57, XII. p. 131. Comp. the Latin rumpere vocem (Drakenborch, ad Sil. It. iv. 528). But since the verb alone is never thus used, it is safer to derive the supplement from what has preceded; hence Kypke and Schott correctly supply εὐφροσύνην (rumpe jubilum, begin to rejoice), not because ôÌÄöÀçÄé øÄðÌÈä stands in the Hebrew (Schott), but because ΕὐΦΡΟΣΎΝΗΝ flows from the previous ΕὐΦΡΆΝΘΗΤΙ ;[222] “rejoice, let it break forth.” The opposite is ῥήγνυμι κλαυθμόν (Plut. Per. 36), ῬΉΓΝ . ΔΑΚΡΎΩΝ ΝΆΜΑΤΑ (Soph. Trach. 919).
στεῖρα κ . τ . λ .] applies in the connection of the original text to Jerusalem, and is also here necessarily (see Gal_4:26)—according to the Messianic fulfilment of the prophecy, in the light of which Paul apprehends the Scriptural saying—to be referred to Jerusalem, but to the ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ , ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν , whereas the ἡ ἔχουσα τὸν ἄνδρα which is placed in comparison with it is the νῦν Ἱερουσαλήμ . See above. Chrysostom and his successors, Bengel and others, consider that the words στεῖρα κ . τ . λ . apply to the Gentile Christians (she who had the husband being the Jewish church); but against this view it may be urged that that ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ ἡμῶν , which refers to all Christians, is to be proved by Gal_4:27.
ΠΟΛΛᾺ … ΜᾶΛΛΟΝ Ἤ ] not used instead of ΠΛΕΊΟΝΑ Ἤ , which would leave the multitude of children entirely undetermined; but it affirms that both had many children,—the solitary one, however, the greater number: for numerous are the children of the solitary one in a higher degree than those of her who possessed the husband. So the LXX. has rightly understood the Hebrew øÇáÌÄéí îÄáÌÀðÅé .
[221] For this Scriptural proof, the particular passage Isa_54:1 is selected with great skill and true tact, since the ἄνω Ἱερουσαλήμ is the allegorical counterpart of Sarah, this στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα κ . τ . λ .
[222] The LXX. probably did not read øÄðÌÈä .