[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

some recognised mode of interpretation. Comp. the note on avva-rotxe. ver, 25, and see the remarks p. 198. St Paul uses dAMmyopia here much in the same sense as he uses rumos I Cor. x. II raûra 8: rumukós avvéSauvev, not denying the historical truth of the narrative, but superposing a secondary meaning. By a stricter definition d'Amyopia and romos were distinguished as denoting the former a fictitious, the latter a true narrative. See the definition of dAAmyopia, Heracl. Alleg. Hom. 5 Ö ãA\a Plév dyopetov rpános repa & Jy Aéyet amuaivov. Hence the jealousy of the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom, Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in explaining that St Paul uses the word karaxpmorrorós here and does not deny the historical truth of the narrative. The author of the Clem. Hom. (ii. 22) indirectly attacks this allegory: see the introduction, p. 61. ačral yáp k.r.A.] ‘ for these women are (represent) two covenants.' Elow “are' not actually, but mystically or typically; Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26– 28, 1 Cor. x. 4. The article before 8to must be omitted. o pita piév] ‘one of them, which was given from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage.’ The true antithesis would have been répa 8é, but it melts away in the general fusion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For yevvöora used of a mother, see Luke i. 13: it occurs so in Xen. de Rep. Lac. i. 3, and occasionally elsewhere, especially in later writers. firls] ‘inasmuch as she.” # would simply declare the fact, frus places it in dependence on the context. 25. yāp Xuvā K.T.A..] for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, i.e. in the land of bondsmen, themselves de

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

scended from Hagar. The stress lies on iv ri, 'Apašig, not on 3pos, which is unemphatic; or perhaps we should render the words, “Mount Sinai is in Arabia' (comp. Athan. de Decr. 7, 1. p. 168, for 2wa Öpos), as this gives a better sense. The Arabians are called ‘sons of Hagar,” Baruch iii. 23: see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. 1. p. 418. St Paul's language here is further illustrated by the prominence given to Hagar in the national legends of the Arabs, where she is represented as the lawful wife of Abraham : see d'Herbelot Bibl. Or. s. v. Hagiar. The word is preserved also in the name of several Arab tribes, e.g. the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the Old Testament (Ps. lxxxiii. 6, D'où, ‘Ayapnvol; and 1 Chron. v. 19, D'No, *Ayapasot, comp. ver. Io), and the 'Aypalot of heathen writers (Eratosth. in Strabo xvi. p. 767), if these be not the same. A place on the Persian gulf is still so called. It is to the Sinaitic peninsula apparently that Hagar flees (Gen. xvi. 7, 14), and possibly some portion of it may have borne her name in St Paul's time; see below, p. 197. The clause yāp Xuvā K.T.A. is parenthetical, and the nominative to avyorrotxei is uta 8taðijkm. For the various readings in this passage and for different interpretations of the word “Hagar,’ see the detached notes p. 192 sq. ovva rotxes] answers to"; literally, “belongs to the same row or column with.” In military language ovorouxia denotes a file, as ovćvyta does a rank of soldiers; comp. Polyb. x. 21.7. The use of this word here is best illustrated by the Pythagorean orvorouxtat of opposing principles (Arist. Eth. N. i. 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus;

Good, Bad,

Finite, Infinite,

One, Many,

Permanent, Changing, etc. etc.

Similar also were the avorouxtal of grammarians, who so arranged the letters of the alphabet according to the organs of speech (comp. Athen. xi. p. 501 B), or the words derived from the same root according to the ending (Arist. Rhet. i. 7, Top. ii. 9). The allegory in the text then may be represented by orvorrotxial thus;

Hagar, the bond- Sarah, the free

Woman. Woman. Ishmael, the child | Isaac, the child of after the flesh. promise. The old covenant. The new covenant. The earthly Jeru- The heavenly Jesalem. rusalem. etc. etc.

Theoldcovenant is thus avorrotxos with the earthly Jerusalem, but duria rotxos to the heavenly. It is not improbable that St Paul is alluding to some mode of representation common with Jewish teachers to exhibit this and similar allegories. Strangely enough the fathers with but few exceptions translate oruvorouxel “borders upon,' ‘is contiguous to, which is scarcely true even in the most forced sense of contiguity. rfi vöv ‘Iepovorax.jp.] The metropolis of the Jews is taken to represent the whole race. ôovXevel yáp kit.N.] ‘is in spiritual bondage with her children, just as Hagar was in social bondage with her child Ishmael. For röv réxvov adrās see Matt. xxiii. 37. 26. 7 avo'IspovoraMiju.] St Paul here uses an expression familiar to rabbinical teachers, but detaches it from

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

those sensuous and material conceptions with which they invested it. See the treatise de Hieros. Coelest. in Schöttgen's Hor. Hebr. 1. p. 1205. With them it is an actual city, the exact counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem in its topography and its furniture: with him it is a symbol or image, representing that spiritual city of which the Christian is even now a denizen (Phil. iii. 20). See Heb. xii. 22 'IspovoaXilu movgávios, Rev. iii. 12 kauvi) ‘Iepovaa\ju, xxi. 2 dyia 'IspovoraNou : comp. Test. arii. Patr. Dan 5, Clem. Rec. i. 51. The contrast between the two scenes, as they appeared to the eye, would enhance, if it did not suggest, the imagery of St Paul here. On the one hand, Mount Sion, of old the joy of the whole earth, now more beautiful than ever in the fresh glories of the Herodian renaissance, glittering in gold and marble (Joseph. B. J. v. 5. 6); on the other, Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren sides, bleak and desolate, the oppressive power of which the Apostle himself had felt during his sojourn there (see p. 89)—these scenes fitly represented the contrast between the glorious hopes of the new covenant and the blank despair of the old. Comp. Heb. xii. 18–22. The Apostle instinctively prefers the Hebrew form ‘IepovoraMmu here for the typical city, as elsewhere in this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. 1) he employs the Graecised form ‘IepooróAvua for the actual city. “Ispovaa\mu estappellatio Hebraica, originaria et sanction : ‘IepooróAvua, deinceps obvia, Graeca, magis politica,’ says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2, accounting for the usage of St John (“in evangelio IepooróAvua, in apocalypsi 'IspovaaXju’), and referring to this passage in illustration. In his other epistles St Paul has always

‘Ispovaa\iu; Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31, I Cor. xvi. 3. pirmp Huáv] ‘the mother of us Christians.’ St Paul's expression was borrowed and adapted by Polycarp § 3 ràv 806esorav Juiv motorw firls dori přrmp modvrov juáv. From a confusion of this loose quotation with the original text, the word mávrov was early interpolated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (interp.) v. 35. 2. This at all events is not an improbable account of the origin of the received reading trävrov judov; or perhaps trävrov crept in from Rom. iv. 16 5s forw marijp névrov judv. 27. St Paul here illustrates the allegory by reference to a passage in Isaiah liv. 1. This passage in its context is a song of triumph anticipating the deliverance of God's afflicted people Israel from a foreign yoke. Sion has been deserted by her Lord (xlix. 14), and is mourning in her widowhood: she will be restored to favour and become the mother of a large and prosperous people. The image of conjugal union, as representing the relation of Jehovah to His people, is drawn out at some length in the context, see esp. liv. 5, 6. In order moreover fully to understand St Paul's application here, it must be remembered that in another part of the same prophecy (li. 2) God's dealings with Abraham and Sarah are pointed to as a type of His dealings with their descendants. Accordingly Jewish writers connected li. 2 with liv. I; “Sterilitas Abrahae et Sarae figura fuit sterilitatis Sion,' Ir Gibborim fol. 49. 2, quoted in Schöttgen. Here then Sarah = the chosen people=the Church of Christ. yāyparral yáp] from the LXX where some few texts add kai réprov after 3ónorov with the Hebrew. It is quoted as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Epist. ii. § 2, and Justin, Apol. i. c. 53, p. 88 c, and similarly applied. On the coincidence of Justin's quotations with St Paul's see p. 60, and the notes iii. Io, 13; comp. Semisch Just. Mart. I. p. 258 sq (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew differs somewhat, as do the other Greek versions (see Jerome and Procopius in Is. l.c.). Tàp links the quotation with arrmp judov. orrespa) The barren one is not Gentile Christendom as opposed to Jewish, but the new dispensation as opposed to the old. At the same time the image of barrenness derives its force from the introduction of the Gentile element into the Christian Church. Compare the metaphor of the dyptéAatos, Rom. xi. 17. ToMAá rékva uá\\ov 7) for the usual Greek moetova #, the Hebrew idiom (or Donn), which has no comparative, being followed. rijs éxoWorms rôv àv8pa] in St Paul's application, Hagar, who for a time possessed the affection of Abraham and conceived by him. She thus represents the Jewish people at one time enjoying the special favour of Jehovah. 28–V. 1. “So, brethren, you as Christians are children of a promise, like Isaac. Nor does the allegory end here. Just as Ishmael the child born after the flesh insulted Isaac the child born after the Spirit, so is it now. But the cnd shall be the same now, as then. In the language of the Scripture, the bondwoman and her offspring shall be cast out of the father's house. The child of the slave cannot share the inheritance with the child of the free. Remember therefore, brethren, that you are not children of any slave, but of the free and wedded wife. I speak of that free

dom, whereunto we all are emancipated in Christ. Remember this, and 'act upon it. Firmly resist all pressure, and do not again bow your necks under the yoke of slavery.” 28. He is 84] resuming the main subject, ver, 27 being in a manner parenthetical. karū 'Ioadk] See Rom. ix. 7–9. The Gentiles were sprung from one ‘as good as dead': they had no claims of race or descent. Thus they were sons not kara orápka, but, like Isaac, €8 mayyeXtas. The reading juess...éopév, for justs ...éorré, is very highly supported, but perhaps was a transcriber's correction to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct appeal of ouess is more forcible, and the change of persons is characteristic of St Paul; see the note ver. 7. 29. £8tokev rôv k.r.A.] The Hebrew text, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply “laughing’ (pnxp). This single word the LXX expands into traitovra usrå 'Ioraak row viot auros. From this it may be conjectured that the verse originally ended [prison n×n-] prisp (comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words in brackets having dropped out owing to the homoeoteleuton. At all events the word seems to mean ‘mocking, jeering’; ‘Lusio illa illusio erat,’ says Augustine pertinently (Serm. 3). The anger of Sarah, taken in connexion. with the occasion, a festival in honour of the weaning of Isaac, seems to require it. Such also would appear to be the force of the rendering in the older Targum, Trip. On the other hand the Book of Jubilees paraphrases the passage, ‘When Sarah saw that Ishmael was merry and danced and that Abraham also rejoiced greatly thereat, she was jealous etc.” (Ewald's

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Jahrb. III. p. 13). But beyond the text itself two circumstances must be taken into account as affecting St Paul's application of it. (1) This incident which is so lightly sketched in the original narrative had been drawn out in detail in later traditions, and thus a prominence was given to it, which would add force to the Apostle's allusion, without his endorsing these traditions himself. For the rabbinical accounts of Ishmael's insolence to his brother see Beer Leben Abraham's, pp. 49, 170. (2) The relations between the two brothers were reproduced in their descendants. The aggressions of the Arab tribes (of the Hagarenes especially, see Ps. lxxxiii. 6, 1 Chron. v. Io, 19) on the Israelites were the antitype to Ishmael's mockery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the Apostle may have indirectly contemplated Ishmael's progeny; and he would therefore be appealing to the national history of the Jews in saying “he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.' For the conflicts with the Arabs in the time of Herod see esp. Joseph. Ant. XV. 5. I. oùros kal vov] ‘So now the Church of God is persecuted by the children after the flesh.” St Paul's persecutors were at first Jews, afterwards Judaizers; but both alike were “born after the flesh, for both alike claimed to inherit the covenant by the performance of certain material carnal ordinances. 30. § ypaq’s] Gen. xxi. Io, taken from the LXX which again is a close translation of the Hebrew. At the end of the quotation however St Paul has substituted rijs mat3torkms usra rod viot ris Aev6épas for the LXX rms mat8to kms raúrms Heră rod viot uov Ivadz,

in order to adapt it to his own context and to save explanation. For instances of adapted quotations, which are frequent, see iii. Io and Acts vii. 43. The words are spoken by Sarah to Abraham, but her demand is confirmed by the express command of God, Gen. xxi. 12, “Hearken unto her voice, to which the later Targum adds, “for she is a prophetess.' où pai) k\mpovopija's] ‘shall in no wise inherit'; comp. Joh. viii. 35 6 800Xos of uévet év rs, oikia eis row alóva x-r.A. The Law and the Gospel cannot co-exist; the Law must disappear before the Gospel. It is scarcely possible to estimate the strength of conviction and depth of prophetic insight which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death-knell of Judaism at a time when one-half of Christendom clung to the Mosaic law with a jealous affection little short of frenzy, and while the Judaic party seemed to be growing in influence and was strong enough, even in the Gentile churches of his own founding, to undermine his influence and endanger his life. The truth which to us appears a truism must then have been regarded as a paradox. k\mpovouriose should probablyberead, not k\mpovopijon, as being better supported here and in the LXx; comp. Winer Šlvi.p. 635, and A. Buttmann p. 183. 31. 8tó] ‘wherefore,’ as the inference from this allegorical lesson. The particle is chosen rather with a view to the obligation involved in the statement, than to the statement itself; ‘wherefore let us remember that we are not sons of a bondwoman, let us not act as bondslaves.' There are many variations of reading, but Övö is probably correct. Some copies have

« 前へ次へ »