Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 4:4 - 4:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_4:4. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ] corresponds to the ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμ . τοῦ πατρ . (Gal_4:2). The time appointed by God, which was to elapse until the appearance of Christ ( ὁ χρόνος )—consequently the pre-Messianic period—is conceived as a measure which was not yet full, so long as this period had not wholly elapsed (comp. Gen_29:21; Mar_1:15; Luk_21:24; Joh_7:8; Joseph. Antt. vi. 4. 1, et al.). Hence τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου is: that moment of time, through which the measure of time just mentioned became full. Comp. on Eph_1:10, and Fritzsche ad Rom. II. p. 473.
On what historical conditions Paul conceived that counsel as to the fulness of time to depend (Theophylact: ὅτε πᾶν εἶδος κακίας διεξελθοῦσα ἡ φύσις ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη ἐδεῖτο θεραπείας . Baur: “when mankind was ripe for it;” de Wette: “conditioned by the need of certain preparations, or by the necessity of the religious development of mankind which had reached a certain point”), cannot, after his view of the destination of the law which intervened between the promise and its fulfilment (Gal_3:19; Gal_3:24; Rom_5:20), remain doubtful Theophylact takes in substance the right view. The need had reached its height. Comp. Chrysostom, ad Eph. i. 10: ὅτε μάλιστα ἔμελλον ἀπόλλυσθαι , τότε διεσώθησαν . Without due ground Baur perceives here (see his neut. Theol. p. 173) the idea that Christianity proceeded from a principle inherent in humanity, namely, from the advance of the mind to the freedom of self-consciousness.
ἐξαπέστειλεν ] He sent forth from Himself. Gal_4:6; Act_7:12; Act_11:22; Act_17:14, et al.; Dem. 251. 5; Polyb. iii. 11. 1, iv. 26. 2, iv. 30. 1, and frequently. The expression presupposes the idea of the personal pre-existence of Christ (see Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 16; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 50 Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 316 ff.), and therewith at the same time His personal divine nature (Rom_8:3; Rom_8:32; Php_2:6; 2Co_8:9); so that in reality the apostle’s idea coincides with the Johannean ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τ . Θεόν and Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος , but is not to be reduced to the notion of “the ideal first man” (Hilgenfeld), whose human birth, on account of His pre-existence, is conceived by Paul as not without a certain Docetism.[180] This remark also applies against the view of Beyschlag referring it to the pre-existent prototype of man (Christol. d. N.T. p. 220 ff.), in connection with which the Messianic name of Son is supposed to be carried back from the historical to the pre-historical sphere. This is at variance with the express designation as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (Col_1:15), which likewise forbids us to say, with Hofmann: “By the very fact, that God has sent Him forth from Himself into the world, He is the Son of God.” According to Col_1:15, He is, even before the creation, in the relation of Son to the Father, as begotten by Him,—a relation, therefore, which could not be dependent on the subsequent sending forth, or given for the first time along with the latter.
γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός ] so that He was born of a woman; the relation of the aorist participle is the same as in Php_2:7 f. The reading γεννώμενον —attested only by min., and otherwise feebly, although recommended by Erasmus, adopted by Matthias, and defended by Rinck—is a correct interpretation (as to the meaning, but not as to the tense; see Phot. Qu. Amphil. 90), which also occurs at Rom_1:3, in Codd. mentioned by Augustine. Who this γυνή was, every reader knew; we must not, however, say with Schott, following many of the older expositors, “de virgine sponsa dicitur” (comp. Augustine, Serm. 16 de temp.; Jerome, and others); but comp. Job_14:1; Mat_11:11. Nor is anything peculiar to be found in ἐκ (“ex semine matris … non viri et mulieris coitu,” Calvin; comp. Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calovius, and others; Theophylact, following Basil, Jerome, and others: ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς σῶμα λαβόντα ); on the contrary, ἐκ is quite the usual preposition to express the being born (Joh_3:6; Mat_1:16; 1Pe_1:22, et al.; 3 Esr. Gal_4:16; 4Ma_14:14; frequently used also in classical authors with γίγνεσθαι ). This very fact, that Christ, although the Son of God, whom God had sent forth from Himself, entered into this life as man (Rom_5:15; 1Co_15:21; Act_17:31) and—just as an ordinary man enters into temporal life—as one born of woman, Paul wishes to bring into prominence as the mode of carrying out the divine counsel. Comp. Rom_8:3; Php_2:7. The supernatural generation which preceded the natural birth was not here in question; its mention would even have been at variance with the connection which points to Christ’s humiliation: it is not, however, anywhere else expressly mentioned by the apostle, or certainly indicated as a consequence involved in his system (Weiss). Comp. on Rom_1:3. Nor is it to be inferred from ἐξαπέστειλεν , in connection with the designation of Him who was sent forth as the Son (Hofmann, comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 84); because, while it is assumed that as the Son of God He was already, before His incarnation, with God ( ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν ), the mode of His incarnation—how He was born κατὰ σάρκα ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ (Rom_1:3; comp. Rom_9:5; 2Ti_2:8; Act_2:30)—is not defined.
γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον ] Luther: “made under the law;” and so most expositors: legi subjectum. But it is arbitrary to take γενόμ . here in another sense than before;[181] and the vivid emphasis of the twice-used γενόμ . is thus lost. Hence Michaelis, Koppe, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Lechler, rightly understand ΓΕΝΌΜ . as natum. Thus also, in fact, “the beginning of an εἶναι ὑπὸ ΝΌΜΟΝ ” (Hofmann) is expressed, and expressed indeed more definitely. Paul desires to represent the birth of the Son of God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as an ordinary Jewish birth (comp. Heb_2:14-17); and he therefore says: “born of a woman, born under the law,” so that He was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordinances of the law, like any other Jewish child. But God caused His Son to be born as an ordinary man and as an ordinary Israelite, because otherwise He could not have undergone death—either at all, or as One cursed by the law (Gal_3:13), which did not apply to those who were not Jews (Rom_1:12)—and could not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as regards those who were its subjects. Comp. Rom_8:3 f.; Heb_3:14 f. For this reason, and not merely on account of the contrast to τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (Schott), Paul has added ΓΕΝΌΜ . ἘΚ ΓΥΝ ., ΓΕΝ . ὙΠῸ ΝΌΜ ., as a characteristic description of the humiliation into which God allowed His Son to enter. See the sequel.
With respect, moreover, to the perfect obedience of Christ to the, law, it was a preliminary condition necessary for the redeeming power of His death (because otherwise the curse of the law would have affected Him even on his own account); but it is not that which is imputed for righteousness: on the contrary, this is purely faith in the ἱλαστήριον of His death. See on Gal_3:13; Rom_4:5; Rom_4:24; Rom_5:6 ff., et al. The doctrine of the Formula Concordiae as to the imputation of the obedientia Christi activa (p. 685) is not borne out by the exegetical proof, of which our passage is alleged to form part; but the atoning death of Christ is the culminating point of His obedience towards God (Rom_5:19; Php_2:8; 2Co_5:21), without the perfection of which He could not have accomplished the atonement; and the form which this obedience assumed in Him, in so far as He was subject to the law, must have been that of legal obedience (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 130).
[180] See, on the contrary, Rom_1:3; indeed, Paul throughout is the very opposite of Docetism.
[181] Viewed by itself, γίνεσθαι ὑπό with the accusative, in the sense to be subject to, is, in a linguistic point of view, quite as correct (1Ma_10:38; Thuc. i. 110. 1; Lucian. Abdic. 23) as with the dative (Herod. vii. 11; Xen. Anab. vii. 2. 3, vii. 7. 32; Thuc. vii. 64. 2).