ページの画像
PDF
ePub

υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ. 8 ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες Θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· νῦν δὲ γνόντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες

three passages where the expression

occurs.

ὁ πατήρ] The nominative with the article is here used for an emphatic vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 ʼn maîs, eyeupe. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227. This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen. Heb. Gramm. § 107.

7. Bore] 'therefore,' in reference to all that has gone before; 'Seeing (1) that this naturally follows when your minority has come to an end; and (2) that you have direct proof of it in the gift of the Spirit, the token of sonship.'

OVKETI El] 'thou art no longer,' now that Christ has come. The appeal is driven home by the successive changes in the mode of address; first, 'we, all Christians, far and wide, Jews and Gentiles alike' (árodáßwμev, ver. 5); next, 'you, my Galatian converts (éoré, ver. 6); lastly, each individual man who hears my words' (el, ver. 7).

εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος] Comp. Rom. viii. 17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι. It has been made a question whether St Paul is here drawing his illustrations from Jewish or from Roman law. In answer to this it is perhaps sufficient to say, that so far as he has in view any special form of law, he would naturally refer to the Roman, as most familiar to his readers. And indeed the Roman law of inheritance supplied a much trucr illustration of the privileges of the Christian, than the Jewish. By Roman law all the children, whether sons or daughters, inherited alike (comp. iii. 28 οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ); by Jewish, the sons inherited unequally, and except in default of male heirs the daughters were excluded; Michaelis Laws of Moses III. 3, § I. See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opusc. I. p. 143.

διὰ Θεοῦ] ‘heir not by virtue of

birth, or through merits of your own, but through God who adopted you.' For dià see the note on i. I. This is doubtless the right reading, having the preponderance of authority in its favour. All other variations, including that of the received text, κληρονόμος Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ, are apparently substitutions of a common expression for one which is unusual and startling.

8-11. 'Nevertheless, in an unfilial spirit, ye have subjected yourselves again to bondage, ye would fain submit anew to a weak and beggarly discipline of restraint. And how much less pardonable is this now! For then ye were idolaters from ignorance of God, but now ye have known God, or rather have been known of Him. Ye are scrupulous in your observance of months and seasons and years. Ye terrify me, lest all the toil which I have expended on you should be found vain.'

áλá] yet still, in spite of your sonship, referring not to ἐδουλεύσατε with which it stands in close proximity, but to the more remote éπσTρéþETE (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17 χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι, ὑπη κούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας κ.τ.λ. The intervening words (ver. 8) are inserted to prepare the way for πάλιν.

τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες] ‘Then it was through ignorance of God that ye were subject etc.'; a partial excuse for their former bondage. For the expression eidévai Deòv see 1 Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess. i. 8.

τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς] ‘to those who by nature were not gods,' i.e. μù οὖσιν θεοῖς ἀλλὰ δαιμονίοις ; comp. 1 Cor. Χ. 20 ἃ θύουσιν [τὰ ἔθνη], δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν. This is the correct order. On the other hand in the reading of the received text, τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσιν θεοῖς, the negative affects φύσει ; i.e. μὴ φύσει ἀλλὰ λόγῳ, ‘not by na

ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; το ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς

ture, but by repute'; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 5 εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί.

9. γνόντες] having discerned, recognised,' to be distinguished from the preceding εἰδότες. See 1 Joh. ii. 29 ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς κ.τ.λ., John xxi. 17. Ephes. v. 5, 1 Cor. ii. II: comp. Gal. ii. 7, 9. While oida 'I know' refers to the knowledge of facts absolutely, γινώσκω ‘I recognise, being relative, gives prominence either to the attainment or the manifestation of the knowledge. Thus γινώσκειν will be used in preference to εἰδέναι; (1) where there is reference to some earlier state of ignorance, or to some prior facts on which the knowledge is based ; (2) where the ideas of 'thoroughness, familiarity,' or of ‘approbation,' are involved: these ideas arising out of the stress which γινώσκειν lays on the process of reception. Both words occur very frequently in the First Epistle of St John, and a comparison of the passages where they are used brings out this distinction of meaning clearly.

γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ Θεοῦ] added to obviate any false inference, as though the reconciliation with God were attributable to a man's own effort. See Ι Cor. viii. 2 εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκέναι τι, οὔπω ἔγνω καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι· εἰ δέ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ' αὐτ τοῦ : comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12. God knows man, but man knows not God or knows Him but imperfectly. See also I Joh. iv. 10 οὐχ ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήκαμεν τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε] The Apostle's ea gerness to remonstrate leads him to interrupt by an interrogation the natural flow of the sentence as marked out by the foregoing words. A present tense is used, for the change was still going on ; comp. i. 6 μετατίθεσθε.

ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχά] 'weak, for they have no power to rescue man from condemnation; 'beggarly,' for they bring no rich endowment of spiritual treasures. For ἀσθενῆ see Rom. viii. 3 τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (comp. Gal. iii. 21), Heb. vii. 18 τὸ ἀσθενὲς καὶ ἀνωφελές.

πάλιν ἄνωθεν] a strong expression to describe the completeness of their relapse.

10. ἡμέρας κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Col. ii. 16 ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, which passage explains the expressions here, stopping short however of ἐνιαυτοί. The ἡμέραι are the days recurring weekly, the sabbaths: μήνες, the monthly celebrations, the new moons : καιροί, the annual festivals, as the passover, pentecost, etc.; ἐνιαυτοί, the sacred years, as the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee. Comp. Judith viii. 6 χωρὶς προσαββάτων καὶ σαββάτων καὶ προνουμηνιῶν καὶ νουμηνιῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἴκου Ισραήλ, Philo de Sept. p. 286 Μ. ἵνα τὴν ἑβδομάδα τιμήσῃ κατὰ πάντας χρόνους ἡμερῶν καὶ μηνῶν καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν κ.τ.λ. For μήνες in the sense it has here comp. Is. lxvi. 23 καὶ ἔσται μὴν ἐκ μηνὸς καὶ σάββατον ἐκ σαββάτου. On this use of καιρὸς for an annually recurring season see Moeris p. 214 (Bekker), Ωρα ἔτους, ̓Αττικοί καιρὸς ἔτους, Ελληνες : and Hesychius, "Ωρα ἔτους και ρὸς ἔτους· τὸ ἔαρ καὶ τὸ θέρος.

ἐνιαυτούς] It has been calculated (Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 204 sq and here) that the year from autumn 54 to autumn 55 was a sabbatical year; and an inference has been drawn from this as to the date of the epistle. The enumeration however seems to be intended as general and exhaustive, and no special reference can be assumed.

On the Christian observance of days in reference to this prohibition of St

καὶ ἐνιαυτούς; "φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μή πως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς.

Paul see the excellent remarks of Origen, c. Cels. viii. 21-23.

Tарarηрeîobe] 'ye minutely, scrupulously observe,' literally 'ye go along with and observe': comp. Ps. cxxix. 3 ἐὰν ἀνομίας παρατηρήσῃς, Joseph. Ant. iii. 5. 5 maparηpeîv тàs ¿ßdoμádas, Clem. Hom. xix. 22 dμedńoavtes Tv παρατήρησιν. In this last passage, which enjoins the observance of days (Éπiτηpýσiμοi ýμépai), there is apparently an attack on St Paul; see above, p. 61. There seems to be no authority for assigning to maрarnрeiv the sense 'wrongly observe,' nor is the analogy of such words as Taрaкovew sufficiently close to bear it out. Here the middle voice still further enforces the idea of interested, assiduous observance ; comp. Luke xiv. 1.

II. KEKOTίaka] the indicative mood, because the speaker suspects that what he fears has actually happened. Herm. on Soph. Aj. 272 says, 'μý èσti verentis quidem est sed indicantis simul putare se ita esse ut veretur.' See Winer § lvi. p. 631 sq.

In the above passage St Paul expressively describes the Mosaic law, as a rudimentary teaching, the alphabet, as it were, of moral and spiritual instruction. The child must be taught by definite rules, learnt by rote. The chosen race, like the individual man, has had its period of childhood. During this period, the mode of instruction was tempered to its undeveloped capacities. It was subject to a discipline of absolute precepts, of external ordinances.

It is clear however from the context, that the Apostle is not speaking of the Jewish race alone, but of the heathen world also before Christ-not of the Mosaic law only, but of all forms of law which might be subservient to the same purpose. This appears from his including his Galatian hearers

under the same tutelage. Nor is this fact to be explained by supposing them to have passed through a stage of Jewish proselytism on their way to Christianity. St Paul distinctly refers to their previous idolatrous worship (ver. 8), and no less distinctly and emphatically does he describe their adoption of Jewish ritualism, as a return to the weak and beggarly discipline of childhood, from which they had been emancipated when they abandoned that worship.

But how, we may ask, could St Paul class in the same category that divinely ordained law which he elsewhere describes as 'holy and just and good' (Rom. vii. 12), and those degraded heathen systems which he elsewhere reprobates as 'fellowship with devils' (1 Cor. x. 20)?

The answer seems to be that the Apostle here regards the higher element in heathen religion as corresponding, however imperfectly, to the lower element in the Mosaic law. For we may consider both the one and the other as made up of two component parts, the spiritual and the ritualistic.

Now viewed in their spiritual aspect there is no comparison between the one and the other. In this respect the heathen religions, so far as they added anything of their own to that sense of dependence on God which is innate in man and which they could not entirely crush (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 23, 27, 28, Rom. i. 19, 20), were wholly bad; they were profligate and souldestroying, were the prompting of devils. On the contrary in the Mosaic law the spiritual element was most truly divine. But this does not enter into our reckoning here. For Christianity has appropriated all that was spiritual in its predecessor. The Mosaic dispensation was a foreshadowing, a germ of the Gospel: and thus, when

14 Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοί, δέομαι ὑμῶν· οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε 13 οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι'

Christ came, its spiritual element was of necessity extinguished or rather absorbed by its successor. Deprived of this, it was a mere mass of lifeless ordinances, differing only in degree, not in kind, from any other ritualistic system.

Thus the ritualistic element alone remains to be considered, and here is the meeting point of Judaism and Heathenism. In Judaism this was as much lower than its spiritual element, as in Heathenism it was higher. Hence the two systems approach within such a distance of each other that they can under certain limitations be classed together. They have at least so much in common that a lapse into Judaism can be regarded as a relapse to the position of unconverted Heathenism. Judaism was a system of bondage like Heathenism. Heathenism had been a disciplinary training like Judaism.

It is a fair inference, I think, from St Paul's language here, that he does place Heathenism in the same category with Judaism in this last respect. Both alike are στοιχεία, elementary systems of training.' They had at least this in common, that as ritual systems they were made up of precepts and ordinances, and thus were representatives of 'law' as opposed to 'grace,' 'promise,' that is, as opposed to the Gospel. Doubtless in this respect even the highest form of heathen religion was much lower and less efficient than the Mosaic ritual. But still in an imperfect way they might do the same work they might act as a restraint, which multiplying transgressions and thus begetting and cherishing a conviction of sin prepared the way for the liberty of manhood in Christ.

Thus comparing the two together from the point of view in which St Paul seems to consider them, we get as the component parts of each: Ju

DAISM; (1) The spiritual-absolutely good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2) The ritualistic-relatively good, σTOLXeia: HEATHENISM; (1) The ritualistic-relatively good, oroixeia; (2) The spiritual-absolutely bad, antagonistic to the Gospel.

If this explanation of St Paul's meaning be correct, it will appear on the one hand that his teaching has nothing in common with Goethe's classification, when he placed Judaism at the head of Ethnic religions. On the other hand it will explain the intense hatred with which the Judaizers, wholly unable to rise above the level of their sectarian prejudices and take a comprehensive view of God's providence, regarded the name and teaching of St Paul.

12-16. 'By our common sympathies, as brethren I appeal to you. I laid aside the privileges, the prejudices of my race: I became a Gentile, even as ye were Gentiles. And now I ask you to make me some return. I ask you to throw off this Judaic bondage, and to be free, as I am free. Do not mistake me; I have no personal complaint; ye did me no wrong. Nay, ye remember, when detained by sickness I preached the Gospel to you, what a hearty welcome ye gave me. My infirmity might well have tempted you to reject my message. It was far otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did not loathe me; but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. And what has now become of your felicitations? Are they scattered to the winds? Yet ye did felicitate yourselves then. Yea, I bear you witness, such was your gratitude, ye would have plucked out your very eyes and have given them to me. What then? Have I made you my enemies by telling the truth?'

12. Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ κ.τ.λ.] of the

ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον· 14 καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξου

év tņ

know.'

meaning of the first clause there can 13. οἴδατε δέ] ' on the contrary ye be but little doubt; 'Free yourself from the bondage of ordinances, as I am free.' Of the second two interpretations deserve to be considered; (1) ‘For I was once in bondage as ye are now, i.e. κἀγὼ ἤμην Ἰουδαῖος ὡς ὑμεῖς νῦν ̓Ιουδαίζετε. So Eusebius (of Emesa ?), Chrysostom, Jerome, and apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad Graec. § 5; see p. 60 note 1: (2) ' For I abandoned my legal ground of righteousness, I became a Gentile like you,' 1.θ. κἀγὼ ἐγενόμην Ἕλλην ὡς ὑμεῖς hre "Eλλnves; comp. ii. 17, 1 Cor. ix. 21. This latter sense is simpler grammatically, as it understands the same verb which occurs in the former clause, èyeνόμην, not ἤμην. It is also more in character with the intense personal feeling which pervades the passage. The words so taken involve an appeal to the affection and gratitude of the Galatians; 'I gave up all those timehonoured customs, all those dear associations of race, to become like you. I have lived as a Gentile that I might preach to you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me when I have abandoned all for you? This sense is well adapted both to the tender appeal 'brethren, I beseech you,' and to the eager explanation which follows 'ye did me no wrong.' For the expression comp. Ter. Eun. i. 2. 116 'meus fac sis postremo animus, quando ego sum tuus.'

οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε] Το these words two different meanings have been assigned; (1) 'Ye never disobeyed me before; do not disobey me now': (2) 'I have no personal ground of complaint.' The latter seems better adapted to the context. Possibly however the real explanation is hidden under some unknown circumstances to which St Paul alludes; see below on di' ἀσθένειαν.

δι' ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός] 'on account of an infirmity in my flesh.' St Paul seems to have been detained in Galatia by illness, so that his infirmity was the cause of his preaching there; see pp. 23, 24. The fact that his preaching among them was thus in a manner compulsory made the enthusiastic welcome of the Galatians the more commendable. If this interpretation seems somewhat forced, it is only because we are ignorant of the circumstances to which St Paul refers: nor is it more harsh than any possible explanation which can be given of the preceding οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε. For the expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102 αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν κύκλον [αἱρεῖν] Νικίας διεκώλυσεν· ἔτυχε γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ δι' ἀσθένει αν ὑπολελειμμένος. Alluding to this afterwards in an impassioned appeal, Nicias might well have said, di ảoléνειαν ἔσωσα τὸν κύκλον. Αt all events this is the only rendering of the words which the grammar admits. No instance has been produced, until a much later date, which would at all justify our explaining δι' ἀσθένειαν, 23 if it were δι' ἀσθενείας ΟΥ̓ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, as is frequently done. The ambiguity of the Latin 'per infirmitatem' gave the Latin fathers a license of interpretation which the original does not allow: Jerome however recognises the proper meaning of the preposition, though wrongly explaining it 'propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae.' Of the Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret, and Theod. Mops. slur over the preposition, interpreting the passage however in a way more consonant with the sense ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ. Photius (? ap. Oecum.) is the first, so far as I have noticed, who boldly gives the ungrammatical rendering μετὰ ἀσθενείας.

τὸ πρότερον] ' on the former of my

« 前へ次へ »