Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:3 - 4:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:3. Ἡμεῖς ] embraces Christians generally, the Jewish and Gentile Christians together. In favour of this view we may decisively urge, (1) the sense of στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (see below); (2) Gal_4:5, where the first ἵνα applies to the Jewish Christians, but the second, reverting to the first person, applies to Christians generally, because the address to the readers which follows in Gal_4:6 represents these as a whole, and not merely the Jewish Christians among them, as included in the preceding ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν ; lastly, (3) that the οὐκέτι and τότε , said of the Galatians in Gal_4:7-8, point back to the state of slavery of the ἡμεῖς in Gal_4:3. Therefore ἡμεῖς is not to be understood as referring either merely to the Jewish Christians (Chrysostom and most expositors, including Grotius, Estius, Morus, Flatt, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler); or—as Hofmann in consistency with his erroneous reference of Gal_3:29 to the Gentile readers holds—to “the Old Testament church of God, which has now passed over into the New Testament church;” or to the Jewish Christians pre-eminently (Koppe, Rückert, Matthies, Olshausen); or, lastly, even to the Gentile Christians alone (Augustine).
ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι ] characterizes, in terms of the prevailing comparison, the pre-Christian condition, which, in relation to the Christian condition of the same persons, was their age of boyhood. Elsewhere Paul has represented the condition of the Christians before the Parousia, in comparison with their state after the Parousia, as a time of boyhood. See 1Co_13:11; Eph_4:13.
ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἦμεν δεδουλ .] corresponds, as application, to the οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου … ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶ καὶ οἰκον . The word στοιχεῖον —which denotes primarily a stake or peg standing in a row, then a letter of the alphabet (Plat. Theaet. p. 202 E; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 1; Arist. Poet. ii. 2; Lucian, Jud. voc. 12), then, like ἀρχή , element (see Rudolph on Ocell. p. 402 ff.)—means here at all events element,[174] which signification has developed itself from the idea of a letter, inasmuch as a word is a series of the letters which form it (Walz, Rhetor. VI. p. 110). In itself, however, it might be used either in the physical sense of elementary substances, which Plato (Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 283) calls also γένη (2Pe_3:10; 2Pe_3:12; Wis_7:17; Wis_19:18; 4Ma_12:13; Plat. Tim. p. 48 B, 56 B, Polit. p. 278 C; Philo, de Opif. m. p. 7, 11, Cherub. p. 162; Clem. Hom. x. 9), as it frequently occurs in Greek authors applied to the so-called four elements (comp. Suidas, s.v.), or in the intellectual sense of rudimenta, first principles (Heb_5:12; Plut. de pueror. educ. 16; Isocr. p. 18 A; Nicol. ap. Stob. xiv. 7. 31; see Wetstein). In the latter sense the verb στοιχειοῦν was used to signify the instruction given to catechumens; Constitt. ap. vi. 18. 1, vii. 25. 2. Comp. our expression the A, B, C of an art or science.[175] In the physical sense—in which it is used by later Greek authors for designating the stars (Diog. L. vi. 102; Man. iv. 624; Eustath. Od. p. 1671, 53)—it was understood by most of the Fathers: either as by Augustine (de civ. D. iv. 11), who thought of the Gentile adoration of the heavenly bodies and of other nature-worship; or as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Pelagius, who referred it to the Jewish observance of new moons, feasts, and Sabbaths, which was regulated by the course of the moon and sun. So, combining the Gentile and Jewish cultus, Hilgenfeld, p. 66 (comp. in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 99; 1866, p. 314), who ascribes to the apostle the heterogeneous idea of “sidereal powers of heaven,” that is, of the stars as powerful animated beings (comp. Baur and Holsten); and Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.), in whose view Paul is supposed to have placed Mosaism in the category of star and nature worship; and likewise Reithmayr, although without such extravagances. But because the expression does not apply either merely to the circumstances of the heathen, or merely to those of the Jewish, cultus (see, on the contrary, Gal_4:8-10),—to the latter of which it is in the physical sense not at all suitable, for the Jewish celebrations of days and the like were by no means a star-worship or other (possibly unconscious) worship of nature, under which man would have been in bondage, but were an imperfect worship of God—and because the context suggests nothing else than the contrast between the imperfect and the perfect religion, as well as also on account of the correlation to νήπιοι , the physical sense of ΣΤΟΙΧΕῖΟΝ is altogether to be rejected.[176] Besides, it would be difficult to perceive why Paul, if he had thought of the stars, should not have written τοῦ οὐρανοῦ instead of τοῦ κόσμου . Hence Jerome (also τινές in Theophylact, and Gennadius in Oecumenius, p. 747 D), Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most of the later expositors, though with various modifications, have correctly adhered to the sense rudimenta disciplinae, which alone corresponds to the notion of the νηπιότης (for the age of childhood does not get beyond first prineiples). The στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are the elements of non-Christian humanity ( κόσμος ; see 1Co_6:2; 1Co_11:32, et al.), that is, the elementary things, the immature beginnings of religion, which occupy the minds of those who are still without the pale of Christianity. Not having attained to the perfect religion, the κόσμος has still to do with the religious elementary state, to which it is in bondage, as in the position of a servant. Rudiments of this sort are expressly mentioned in Gal_4:10; hence we must understand the expression, not in a onesided fashion as the elementary knowledge, the beginnings of religious perception in the non-Christian world (comp. Kienlen, in the Strassb. Beitr. II. p. 133 ff.)—with which neither the idea of the relation as slavery, nor the inclusion of the Jewish and Gentile worships under one category would harmonize—but as the rudimenta ritualia, the ceremonial character of Judaism and heathenism,[177] with which, however, is also combined the corresponding imperfection of religious knowledge. Comp. Col_2:8; Col_2:20. Against the explanation, “religious elementary things of the world,” the objection has been made, that this idea is not suitable either to Judaism, in so far as the latter was a divine revelation, or even to heathenism, which, according to Paul, is something foreign to religion; see especially Neander. But the latter part of the objection is erroneous (Act_17:22-23); and the former part is disposed of, when—in the light of the pretensions put forth by the apostle’s opponents, which were chiefly based on the ceremonial side of the law—we take into account the relative character of the idea rudimenta, according to which Judaism, when compared with Christianity as the absolute religion, may, although a divine institution, yet be included under the notion of στοιχεῖα , because destined only for the νήπιοι and serving a transitory propaedeutic purpose. Comp. Baur, Paulus, II. p. 222, ed. 2; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 289; also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 73. Most of the older expositors, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette (with many various and mistaken interpretations of κόσμος ; see Wolf and Rückert in loc.), have referred the expression merely to Judaism (the law “as a means of training calculated only for the age of childhood,” de Wette, who is followed by Wieseler), whilst Koppe and Schott only allow the analogous nature of ethnicism to be included incidentally; but, besides what has been above remarked on ἡμεῖς , these views are at variance with the idea of τοῦ κόσμου . This idea is, at all events, too wide to suit the law, which was given to the people of Israel only; whether it be taken as applying to mankind generally (de Wette, Wieseler), or to the unbelieving portion of mankind, in contrast to the ἅγιοι in a Christian sense.[178] Certainly it might appear unwise (see especially Wieseler) that Paul should have placed Judaism and heathenism in one category. But, in point of fact, he has to deal with Judaistic seductions occurring in churches chiefly Gentile-Christian: he might therefore, with the view of more effectually warning them and putting them to shame, so designate the condition of bondage to which by these seductions they were induced to revert, as to comprehend it in the same category with the heathen cultus, from the bondage of which they had been not long before liberated by Christianity. According to Hofmann, the στοιχεῖα τ . κόσμου are contrasted with the promise given to Abraham of the ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΊΑ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ , Rom_4:13. He supposes that out of the destruction of the material elements of the present world (2Pe_3:10) the οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα (Heb_2:5) will arise, and that this will derive its nature and character from the Spirit, the communication of which is the beginning of the fulfilment of that promise. Israel, however, has been in bondage under the material elements of which the present world is composed, inasmuch as in what it did and what it left undone it was subject to stringent laws, which had reference to the world in its existing materiality; it had to conform itself to the things of this corporeal world, whilst the promise had been made to it that it should be lord of all things. Apart from the erroneous application of ἡμεῖς (see above), every essential point in this interpretation is gratuitously introduced. In particular, the contrast on which it is based—namely, that of the new world of the αἰών which is to come—is utterly foreign not only to the whole context, but even to the words themselves; for, if Paul had had this contrast in view, he must, in order not to leave his readers wholly without a hint of it, have at least added a ΤΟΎΤΟΥ (1Co_7:31; 1Co_1:20; 1Co_3:19; Eph_2:2) to ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ .[179] It is, moreover, incorrect to discover in the στοιχεῖα the opposite of the future world, so far as the latter has its nature from the Spirit. The world of the αἰὼν μέλλων , as the new heaven and the new earth (2Pe_3:13), must likewise be corporeally material, and must have its στοιχεῖα , although the σχῆμα of the old world will have passed away (comp. on 1Co_7:31).
ἦμεν δεδουλωμ .] may be taken either together, or separately; the latter is to be preferred, because it corresponds more emphatically to the οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου (Gal_4:1) and the ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστι (in Gal_4:2): we were enslaved ones.
[174] A point on which almost all expositors agree. Yet Luther, 1519, following the precedent of Tertull. c. Marc. v. 4, adopted the signification of letters: “pro ipsis literis legis, quibus lex constat.… Mundi autem vocat, quod sint de iis rebus, quae in mundo sunt.” So also in 1524, and at least to a similar effect in 1538. More recently Michaelis has also explained it as letters; holding that the acts of the Levitical law were intended, because, taken as a whole, they had preached the gospel by anticipation. Similarly Nösselt, Opusc. II. p. 209, takes στοιχεῖα as signs (Arist. Eccl. 652, where it is used for the shadow of the plate on the sun-dial; comp. Lucian, Gall. 9, Cronos. 17), holding that the Jewish ceremonies are thus named because they prefigured the future Christian worship. These views are all erroneous, because the expression στοιχεῖα τ . κόσμου applies also to Gentile habits.
[175] Comp. generally, Schaubach, Commentat. quid στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in N.T. sibi velint, Meining. 1862.
[176] With strange arbitrariness Schulthess (Engelwelt, pp. 113, 129) has recently anticipated Hilgenfeld in re-asserting this sense; holding that the stars are meant, but that Paul is glancing at the Jewish ministry of angels (Job_38:7 (!)). More thoroughly Schneckenburger (in the theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 445 ff.) has again defended the physical reference (elements of the visible world). Comp. Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 323. In this interpretation the law must be excepted (as is done by Holsten) from the στοιχεῖα ,—an exception which is forbidden by the whole connection with ch. 3, and is also inconsistent with the concrete instances in vv. 8 and 10; see above. Neander also—who, however, introduces the idea of the sensuous forms of religion—would retain the physical reference, which is decidedly assumed by Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 83), who specially commends the interpretation of Hilgenfeld; whilst Messner (Lehre d. Ap. p. 226) agrees in substance with Neander, holding that δεδουλ . ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου is “the dependence of the religious consciousness on the earthly, sensuous, perishable things, of which this earthly κόσμος , as to its fundamental elements, consists.” But why, then, the restriction “as to its fundamental elements?” And the idea of perishableness is imported. Ewald understands by it the elements of the world, into the whole of which life must be brought through the spirit, and unity and meaning through God; it comprehends the Jewish observances as to meats and days, as well as the heathen star-worship. Yet how unsuited to popular apprehension (as pertaining to natural philosophy) would the whole expression thus be! an enigmatic designation for the heathen worship, and an unsuitable one for the Jewish cultus, which is based on divine precept. As to the way in which Hofmann understands the material elements of the world, see the sequel.
[177] Comp. Schaubach, l.c. p. 9 ff.
[178] Olshausen, feeling the difficulty which the idea of κόσμος puts in the way of the reference to Judaism, hits upon the arbitrary expedient of taking the expression to apply to the merely external and literal way of apprehending the O. T., which confines itself merely to the actions, without considering the idea involved in them. “This was the procedure of the Judaists, and in this shape the Old Test. appeared not merely as the beginning of divine life, but also as given over to the world,” etc.
[179] He does not add τούτου in Col_2:8; Col_2:20, just because the contrast suggested by Hofmann was far from his thoughts.