Комментарии к Библии

CHAPTER 4

Galatians 4:6. ἡμῶν] Elz. has ὑμῶν, against decisive testimony, after the foregoing ἐστέ.

Galatians 4:7. κληρονόμος] Elz. and Scholz add Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ. There are many variations, among which κληρ. διὰ Θεοῦ has most external attestation, viz. A B C* א*, Copt. Vulg. Boern. Clem. Bas. Cyr. Didym. Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel.; so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta κληρ. Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ is defended by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum Opusc. p. 148, and Reiche; whilst Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold only κληρ. διὰ Χριστοῦ as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome (238, lect. 19, have κληρ. διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ); Griesb. and Rück., however, would read merely κληρονόμος (so 178 alone). Theophyl. Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Romans 8:17 κληρ. μὲν Θεοῦ, συγκληρ. δὲ Χριστοῦ. Amidst this great diversity, the much preponderating attestation of κληρ. διὰ Θεοῦ (in favour of which F G also range themselves with κληρ. διὰ Θεόν) is decisive; so that the Recepta must be regarded as having arisen from a gloss, and the mere κληρονόμος, which has almost no attestation, as resulting from a clerical omission of διὰ Θεοῦ.

Galatians 4:8. φύσει μή] So A B C D* E א, min., vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. Matth. Scholz, Schott, Reiche, have μὴ φύσει. Opposed to this is the decisive weight of the evidence just given, and the internal ground, that in τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσι θεοῖς people might easily find the entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but be more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the gods reality in general, and only denying them actual divinity. The same cause probably induced the omission of φύσει in K, 117, Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir. Victorin. Ambrosiast.

Galatians 4:14. πειρασμόν μου τόν] So Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. Reiche, following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and Fathers. But A B C** D* F G א*, 17, 39, 67*, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast. Sedul., have τειρασμὸν ὑμῶν. Recommended by Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. And justly; ὑμῶν not being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. Arm. Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Rück., Schott, Fritzsche), or amended by μου τόν. Comp. Wieseler.

Galatians 4:15. τίς οὖν] Grot., Lachm., Rück., Usteri, Ewald, Hofm., read ποῦ οὖν, which is indeed attested by A B C F G א, min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel., but by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (τὸ οὖν τίς ἐνταῦθα ἀντὶ τοῦ ποῦ ὁ μακαρ.), Theodoret, Theophyl., and Oecum., is pretty well shown to be an ancient interpretation.

The ἦν which follows is omitted in A B C L א, min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. Theodoret. ms. Expunged by Lachm. and Scholz, also Tisch. Rightly. According as τίς was understood either correctly as expressing quality, or as equivalent to ποῦ, either ἦν (D E K et al.) or ἐστι (115, Sedul. Jer.), or even νῦν (122, Erp.), was supplied. In Oecum. the reading ἦν is combined with the explanation ποῦ by recourse to the gloss: νῦν γὰρ οὐχ ὁρῶ αὐτόν.

ἄν] before ἐδώκ. is wanting in A B C D* F G א, 17, 47, Dam. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.: a grammatical addition.

Galatians 4:17. ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς] Elz. has ἐκκλ. ἡμᾶς, which is found only in a very few min., was introduced into the text by Beza,[172] and must be looked upon as an unnecessary conjecture.

Galatians 4:18. τὸ ζηλοῦσθαι] A C and four min., Damasc. have ζηλοῦσθαι merely (so Lachm.), while B א, and three min., Aeth. Vulg. Jer. Ambrosiast., read ζηλοῦσθε. The latter is an ancient error in transcribing, which involved the suppression of the article. The correct form ζηλοῦσθαι was restored, but the article, which seemed superfluous, was not recovered.

Galatians 4:21. ἀκούετε] D E F G, 10, 31, 80, Vulg. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have ἀναγινώσκετε. An ancient interpretation.

Galatians 4:24. δύο] Elz. has αἱ δύο, against decisive testimony.

Galatians 4:25. Ἄγαρ] is wanting in C F G א, 17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr. Epiph. Damasc. Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by Lachm. and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers Ἄγαρ to the Syriac Church, although it is attested by A B D E K L, and most min., Chrys., and others. But instead of γάρ, A B D E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have δέ. The juxtaposition of γὰρ Ἄγαρ led to the omission sometimes of the Ἄγαρ, and sometimes of the γάρ. After the latter was omitted, in a part of the witnesses the connection that was wanting was restored by δέ; just as in the case of several, mostly more recent authorities, instead of γάρ after δουλεύει, δέ has crept in (so Elz.), because the argument of the apostle was not understood.

συστοιχεῖ δέ] D* F G, Vulg. It. Goth., read ἡ συστοιχοῦσα; D*, however, not having the article. A gloss, in order to exhibit the reference to Ἄγαρ in Galatians 4:24.

Galatians 4:26. ἡμῶν] Elz. reads πάντων ἡμῶν; Lachm. has bracketed πάντων. But it is wanting in B C* D E F G א, some min., most vss., and many Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.; defended by Reiche. An amplifying addition, involuntarily occasioned by the recollection of Galatians 3:26; Galatians 3:28, and the thought of the multitude of the τέκνα (Galatians 4:27).

Galatians 4:28. ἡμεῖς … ἐσμέν) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch., read ὑμεῖς ἐστε, following B D F G, some min., Sahid. Aeth. Ir. Victorin. Ambr. Tychon. Ambrosiast. Justly; the first person was introduced on account of Galatians 4:26; Galatians 4:31.

Galatians 4:30. κληρονομήσῃ] Lachm. reads κληρονομήσει, following B D E א and Theophylact; from the LXX.

Galatians 4:31. ἄρα] A C, 23, 57, Copt. Cyr. Damasc. Jer. Aug., have ἡμεῖς δέ; B D* E א, 67**, Cyr. Marcion, read διό. The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred; for ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀδελφοί is evidently a mechanical repetition of Galatians 4:28 (Rec.), and ἄρα is too feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have ἀρα οὖν).

[172] Beza himself allows that ὑμᾶς stands in all the codd. (in the fifth edition he adds: Latin), but considers that the sense requires ἡμᾶς.

CONTENTS.

Further discussion of the κληρονόμους εἶναι (Galatians 3:29), as a privilege which could not have been introduced before Christ, while the period of nonage lasted, but was first introduced by means of Christ and Christianity at the time appointed by God, when the earlier servile relation was changed into that of sonship (Galatians 4:1-7). After Paul has expressed his surprise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he may have laboured among them in vain (Galatians 4:8-11), he entreats them to become like to him, and supports this entreaty by a sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love which they had manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to have been converted into enmity (Galatians 4:12-16). He warns them against the selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted them (Galatians 4:17), while at the same time he reproves their fickleness (Galatians 4:18), and expresses the wish that he were now present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode of speaking to them, their lost confidence (Galatians 4:18-20). Lastly, he refutes the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely by an allegorical interpretation of the account that Abraham had two sons, one by the bond-woman, and one by the free woman (Galatians 4:21-30), and then lays down the proposition that Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in ch. 5. (Galatians 4:31).

Galatians 4:1. λέγω δέ] Comp. Galatians 3:17, Galatians 5:16; Romans 15:8; 1 Corinthians 1:12 : now I mean, in reference to this κληρονομία brought in through Christ, the idea of which I have now more exactly to illustrate to you as for the first time realized in Christ. This illustration is derived by Paul from a comparison of the pre-Christian period to the period of the non-free, slave-like childhood of the heir-apparent.

ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον] As in Romans 7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:39.

ὁ κληρονόμος] The article as in ὁ μεσίτης, Galatians 3:20 : the heir in any given case. Κληρ. is, however, to be conceived here, as in Matthew 21:38, as the heir of the father’s goods, who is so not yet in actual personal possession, but de jure—the heir apparent, whose father is still alive. So Cameron, Neubour (Bibl. Brem. v. p. 40), Wolf, Baumgarten, Semler, Michaelis, and many others, including Winer, Schott, Wieseler, Reithmayr. But Rückert, Studer (in Usteri), Olshausen (undecided), Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, following Chrysostom, Theodoret, and most of the older expositors, conceive the heir as one whose father is dead. Incorrectly, on account of Galatians 4:2; for the duration of the guardianship (in which sense ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους, Galatians 4:2, must then be understood) could not have been determined by the will of the father,[173] but would have depended on the law (Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 121). Hofmann thinks, indeed, that the point whether the father was bound by a law of majority is not taken into account, but only the fact, that it is the father himself who has made arrangements respecting his heir. But in this view the προθεσμία, as prescribed by the father, would be entirely illusory; the notice would be absurd, because the προθεσμία would be not τοῦ πατρός, but τοῦ νόμου.

νήπιος] still in boyhood. Comp. 1 Corinthians 13:11. “Imberbis juvenis tandem custode remoto gaudet equis,” etc., Virg. Aen. ix. 649. Quite in opposition to the context, Chrysostom and Oecumenius refer it to mental immaturity (Romans 2:20; Hom. Il. v. 406, xvi. 46, et al.).

οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου] because he is not sui juris. Comp. Liban. in Chiis, p. 11 D, in Wetstein.

κύριος πάντων ὤν] although he is lord of all, namely de jure, in eventum, as the heir-apparent of all the father’s goods. Consequently neither this nor the preceding point is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the father is still alive (as Hofmann and others have objected). Comp. Luke 16:31.

The κληρονόμος νήπιος represents, not the people of Israel (Wieseler); but, according to the connection with Galatians 3:29 (comp. Galatians 4:3), the Christians as a body, regarded in their earlier pre-Christian condition. In this condition, whether Jewish or Gentile, they were the heir-apparent, according to the idea of the divine predestination (Romans 8:28 ff.; Ephesians 1:11; John 11:52), in virtue of which they were ordained to be the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the true σπέρμα of Abraham.

[173] Baumgarten-Crusius, indeed, appeals to the proof adduced by Göttling (Gesch. d. Röm. Staatsverf. pp. 109, 517), that Gaius, I. 55. 65, 189, comp. Caes. Bell. Gall. vi. 19, mentions the existence of a higher grade of the patria potestas among the Galatians. But in this way it is by no means shown that the time of majority was, after the death of the father, dependent on the settlement which he had previously made.

Galatians 4:2. Ἐπίτροπος means here not guardian (ὀρφανῶν ἐπίτροπος, Plat. Legg. p. 766 C; Dem. 988. 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 40; 2Ma 11:1; 2Ma 13:2; 2Ma 14:2; comp. also the rabbinical אפוטרופוס in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 743 f.), as it is explained by all who look upon the father as dead (see, however, on Galatians 4:1), but overseer, governor, and that without any more special definition (Herod. i. 108; Pind. Ol. i. 171; Dem. 819. 17; Xen. Oec. 21. 9; and very frequently in classical authors); it is neither therefore to be taken (as in Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3) as synonymous with οἰκονόμος (which would give a double designation without ground for it), nor as equivalent to παιδαγωγός (which would be an arbitrary limitation). The term denotes any one, to whose governorship the boy is assigned by the father in the arrangement which has been made of the family affairs; and from this category are then specially singled out the οἰκονόμοι, the superior slaves appointed as managers of the household and property (Luke 16:1), on whom the νήπιος was dependent in respect to money and other outward wants.

ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός] Until the appointed time of the father, until the term, which the father has fixed upon for releasing his son from this state of dependence. ἡ προθεσμία, tempus praestitutum, does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but is frequent in classical authors. See Wetstein; also Jacobs, Ach. Tat. p. 440.

Galatians 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) Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 4:7-8, point back to the state of slavery of the ἡμεῖς in Galatians 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 Galatians 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 1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 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 (2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 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 (Hebrews 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, Galatians 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 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 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 Galatians 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. Colossians 2:8; Colossians 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 (Acts 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, Romans 4:13. He supposes that out of the destruction of the material elements of the present world (2 Peter 3:10) the οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα (Hebrews 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 (1 Corinthians 7:31; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 3:19; Ephesians 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 (2 Peter 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 1 Corinthians 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 (Galatians 4:1) and the ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστι (in Galatians 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 Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20, just because the contrast suggested by Hofmann was far from his thoughts.

Galatians 4:4. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθε τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου] corresponds to the ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμ. τοῦ πατρ. (Galatians 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. Genesis 29:21; Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24; John 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 Ephesians 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 (Galatians 3:19; Galatians 3:24; Romans 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. Galatians 4:6; Acts 7:12; Acts 11:22; Acts 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 (Romans 8:3; Romans 8:32; Php 2:6; 2 Corinthians 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 (Colossians 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 Colossians 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 Romans 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; Matthew 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 (John 3:6; Matthew 1:16; 1 Peter 1:22, et al.; 3 Esr. Galatians 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 (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; Acts 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. Romans 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 Romans 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 (Romans 1:3; comp. Romans 9:5; 2 Timothy 2:8; Acts 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. Hebrews 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 (Galatians 3:13), which did not apply to those who were not Jews (Romans 1:12)—and could not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as regards those who were its subjects. Comp. Romans 8:3 f.; Hebrews 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 Galatians 3:13; Romans 4:5; Romans 4:24; Romans 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 (Romans 5:19; Php 2:8; 2 Corinthians 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, Romans 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).

Galatians 4:5. The object for which God sent forth His Son, and sent Him indeed γενόμ. ἐκ γυναικ., γενόμ. ὑπὸ νόμον.

τοὺς ὑ̔πὸ νόμον] The Israelites are thus designated in systematic correspondence to the previous γενόμ. ὑπὸ νόμον. Comp. Galatians 3:25, Galatians 4:21, Galatians 5:18; Romans 6:14.

ἐξαγοράσῃ] Namely, as follows from τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον, from the dominion of the law, Galatians 4:1-3 (in which its curse, Galatians 3:11, is included), and that through His death, Galatians 3:13. Erasmus well says: “dato pretio assereret in libertatem.”

ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσ. ἀπολάβ.] The aim of this redemption; for of this negative benefit the υἱοθεσία was the immediate positive consequence. But Paul could not again express himself in the third person, because the υἱοθεσία had been imparted to the Gentiles also, whereas that redemption referred merely to the Jews; but now both, Jews and Gentiles, after having attained the υἱοθεσία no longer ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἦσαν δεδουλωμένοι (Galatians 4:3): hence Paul, in the first person of the second sentence of purpose, speaks from the consciousness of the common faith which embraced both the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the Christian body, not merely from the Jewish-Christian consciousness, as Hofmann holds on account of ἐστέ in Galatians 4:6. Comp. the change of persons in Galatians 3:14.

The υἱοθεσία is here, as it always is, adoption (see on Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:15; and Fritzsche, in loc.),—a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the signification of the word allows no other interpretation, and the context requires no other. Previously not different from slaves (Galatians 4:1-3), as they were in the state of νηπιότης, believers have now entered into the entirely different legal relation towards God of their being adopted by Him as children. Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 338 f. The divine begetting (to which Hofmann refers) is a Johannean view; see on John 1:12. In the divine economy of salvation the gracious gift of the υἱοθεσία was needed in order to attain the κληρονομία; while in the human economy, which serves as the figure, the heir-apparent becomes at length heir as a matter of course. Accordingly Paul has not given up (Wieseler) the figure on which Galatians 4:1 ff. was based—a view at variance with the express application in Galatians 4:3, and the uninterrupted continuation of the same in Galatians 4:4; but he has merely had recourse to such a free modification in the application, as was suggested to him by the certainly partial difference between the real circumstances of the case and the figure set forth in Galatians 4:1-2. Comp. Galatians 4:7.

ἀπολάβ.] not: that we might again receive, as is the meaning of ἀπολαμβ. very often in Greek authors (see especially Dem. 78. 3; 162. 17), and in Luke 15:27; for before Christ men never possessed the υἱοθεσία here referred to (although the old theocratic adoption of the Jews was never lost, Romans 9:4): hence Augustine and others are in error when they look back to the sonship that was lost in Adam. Nor must we assume with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, and Reithmayr, that, because the υἱοθεσία is promised, it is denoted by ἀπολάβ. as ὀφειλομένη,—a sense which is often conveyed by the context in Greek authors and also in the N.T. (Luke 6:34; Luke 23:41; Romans 1:27; Colossians 3:24; 2 John 1:8), but not here, because it is not the υἱοθεσία expressly, but the κληρονομία (Galatians 3:29, Galatians 4:7), which is the object of the promise. As little can we say, with Rückert and Schott, that the sonship is designated as fruit (ἀπο = inde) of the work of redemption, or, with Wieseler, as fruit of the death of Jesus apprehended by faith: for while it certainly is so in point of fact, the verb could not lead to it without some more precise indication in the text than that given by the mere ἐξαγορ. On the contrary, ἀπολάβ. simply denotes: to take at the hands of any one, to receive, as Luke 16:25; Plat. Legg. xii p. 956 D, and very frequently in Greek authors.

Galatians 4:6. A confirmation of the reality of this reception of sonship from the experience of the readers; for the ἐστέ, which, after the foregoing more general statement, now comes in with its individual application (comp. Galatians 3:26), does not refer to the Galatians as Gentile Christians only (Hofmann), any more than in Galatians 3:26-29.

ὅτι] is taken by most expositors, following the Vulgate, as quoniam (Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller, Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, and others). And this interpretation (on ὅτι, because, at the beginning of the sentence, comp. 1 Corinthians 12:15; John 20:29; John 15:19) is the most simple, natural, and correct; the emphasis is laid on υἱοί, which is therefore placed at the end: but because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son, etc. He would not have done this, if ye had not (through the υἱοθεσία) been υἱοί; thus the reception of the Spirit is the experimental and practical divine testimony to the sonship. If not sons of God, ye would not be the recipients of the Spirit of His Son. The Spirit is the seal of the sonship, into which they had entered through faith—the divine σημεῖον attesting and confirming it; comp. Romans 8:16. See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 340. Others (Theophylact, Ambrose, Pelagius, Koppe, Flatt, Rückert, Schott) take ὅτι as that, and treat it as an abbreviated mode of saying: “But that ye are sons, is certain by this, that God has sent forth,” etc. (comp. Galatians 3:11). This is unnecessarily harsh, and without any similar instance in the N.T.; modes of expression like those in Winer, p. 575 f. [E. T. 774], and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 205, are different. Wieseler takes it as equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι (see on Mark 16:14; John 2:18; John 9:17; John 11:51; John 16:19; 1 Corinthians 1:26; 2 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 11:10): “as concerns the reality (ἐστέ is to have the emphasis) of your state as sons.” But this would unnecessarily introduce into the vivid and direct character of these short sentences an element of dialectic reflection, which also appears in Matthias’ view. Hofmann handles this passage with extreme violence, asserting that ὅτι δέ is an elliptical protasis,—the completion of which is to be derived from the apodosis of the preceding period, from ἐξαπέστ. in Galatians 4:4 onward,—that ἐστὲ υἱοί is apodosis, and that the following ἐξαπέστ. κ.τ.λ. is the further result connected with it. In Hofmann’s view, Paul reminds his (Gentile) readers that they are for this reason sons, because God has done that act ἐξαπέστειλεν κ.τ.λ. (Galatians 4:4), and because He has done it in the way and with the design stated in Galatians 4:4 f. This interpretation is at variance with linguistic usage, because the supposed elliptical use of ὅτι δέ does not anywhere occur, and the analogies in the use of εἰ δέ, etc., which Hofmann adduces—some of them, however, only self-invented (as those from the epistles of the apostle, 2 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 7:12)—are heterogeneous. And how abruptly ἐξαπέστ. ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ. would stand! But, as regards the thought also, the interpretation is unsuitable; for they are sons, etc., not because God has sent Christ, but because they have become believers in Him that was sent (Galatians 3:26; John 1:12); it is not that fact itself, but their faith in it, which is the cause of their sonship and of their reception of the Spirit; comp. Galatians 3:14. To refer the sending of the Spirit to the event of Pentecost (as Hofmann does), by which God caused His Spirit to initiate “a presence of a new kind” in the world, is entirely foreign to the connection; comp., on the contrary, Galatians 3:2, Galatians 5:14.

ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς κ.τ.λ.] for it is τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ, 1 Corinthians 2:12. Observe the symmetry with ἐξαπέστ. κ.τ.λ. in Galatians 4:4. The phrase conveys, in point of form, the solemn expression of the objective (Galatians 4:4) and subjective (Galatians 4:5) certainty of salvation, but, in a dogmatic point of view, the like personal relation of the Spirit, whom God has sent forth from Himself as He sent forth Christ.

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] So Paul designates the Holy Spirit, because he represents the reception of the Spirit as the proof of sonship; for the Spirit of the Son cannot be given to any, who are of a different nature and are not also υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. Comp. Romans 8:9. But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, inasmuch as He is the divine principle of Christ’s self-communication, by whose dwelling and ruling in the heart Christ Himself (comp. on 2 Corinthians 3:17) dwells and rules livingly, really, and efficaciously (Galatians 2:20) in the children of God. See on Romans 8:9; Romans 8:14. Comp. the Johannean discourses as to the self-revelation and the coming of Christ in the Paraclete.

ἡμῶν] The change of persons arose involuntarily from the apostle’s own lively, experimental consciousness of this blessedness. Comp. Romans 7:4.

κράζον] The strong word expresses the matter as it was: with crying the deep fervour excited by the Spirit broke forth into appeal to the Father. Comp. Romans 8:15; also Psalm 22:3; Psalm 28:1; Psalm 30:8; Bar 3:1; Bar 4:20. The Spirit Himself is here represented as crying (it is different in Rom. l.c.), because the Spirit is so completely the active author of the Abba-invocation, that the man who invokes appears only as the organ of the Spirit. Comp. the analogy of the opposite case—the crying of the unclean spirits (Mark 1:26; Mark 9:26).

Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ] The usual view taken by modern expositors,[182] following Erasmus and Beza, in this passage, as in Romans 8:15 and in Mark 14:36, is, that ὁ πατήρ is appended as an explanation of the Aramaic Abba for Greek readers (so Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Schott); along with which stress is laid on the “childlike sound” of the expression, so foreign to the Greek readers (Hofmann). But see, against this view, on Romans 8:15. No; Ἀββᾶ, the address of Christ the Son of God to His Father, which had been heard times without number by the apostles and the first believers, had become so established and sacred in Christian prayer that it had assumed the nature of a proper name, so that the deep and lively emotion of the consciousness of sonship could now superadd the appellative ὁ πατήρ; and the use of the two in conjunction had gradually become so habitual (Bengel appropriately remarks, “haec tessera filiorum in Novo Testamento”), that in Mark 14:36, by an hysteron proteron, they are placed even in the mouth of Christ. In opposition to this view, which is adopted by Hilgenfeld and Matthias, it has been objected by Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 140, that ὁ πατήρ expresses exactly the same as the Aramaic אַבָּא, and that, if אבא had assumed the nature of a proper name, this name would very often have occurred in the N.T. and afterwards instead of Θεός; and people would not have said constantly Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ, but also Ἀββᾶ ὁ Θεός. But these objections would only avail to confute our view, if it were maintained that Ἀββᾶ had become in general a proper name of God (as was יהוה in the O.T. and the other names of God), so that it would have been used at every kind of mention of God. The word is, however, to be regarded merely as a name used in prayer: only he who prayed addressed God by this name; and just because he was aware that this name was an original appellative and expressed the paternal character of God, he added the purely appellative corresponding term Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ, and in doing so satisfied the fervour of his feeling of sonship. This remark applies also to Wieseler’s objection, that Ἀββᾶ could only have continued to be used as an appellative. It might become a name just as well as, for instance, Adonai, but with the consciousness still remaining of its appellative origin and import. Moreover, that the address in prayer Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ took its rise among the Greek Jewish-Christians, and first became habitual among them, is clear of itself on account of the Hebrew Abba. It is to be remarked also, that, according to the Rabbins, analogous emotional combinations of a Hebrew and a Greek address, which mean quite the same thing, were in use. See Erub. f. 53. Galatians 2 : מרי כירי (mi domine, mi ΚΎΡΙΕ). Comp. Schemoth rabb. f. 140. Galatians 2 : קירי מרי אבי. See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 252. Fritzsche’s view is, that the ἈΒΒᾶ of prayer, which had through Christ’s use of it become sacred and habitual, was so frequently explained on the part of the teachers of the Gentile Christians, as of Paul, by the addition of ὁ πατήρ, that it had become a habit with these teachers to say, ἈΒΒᾶ Ὁ ΠΑΤΉΡ. But this would be a mechanical explanation which, at least in the case of Paul, is à priori not probable, and can least of all be assumed in a case where the fervid emotion of prayer[183] is exhibited. Paul would have very improperly allowed himself to be ruled by the custom. Wieseler contents himself with the strengthening of the idea by two synonymous expressions, but this still fails to explain why πάτερ, πάτερ (comp. Soph. O. C. 1101), or πάτερ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν (comp. κύριε ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν, Psalm 8:2), is not said, just as κύριε, κύριε, and the like.

On the nominative with the article, as in apposition to the vocative, see Krüger, § 45. 2. 7.

[182] See the usual view of the ancient expositors, following Augustine, in Luther: “Abba pater cur geminarit, cum grammatica ratio non appareat, placet vulgata ratio mysterii, quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Judaeorum et gentium, duorum populorum unius Dei.” Comp. Calvin and Bengel.

[183] And let it be noticed, that in all the three passages where Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ occurs (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6; Mark 14:36), the most fervid tone of prayer prevails.

Galatians 4:7. Ὥστε] Inference from Galatians 4:5-6.

οὐκέτι] no longer as in the pre-Christian condition, when thou wast in bondage to the στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου.

εἶ] The language, addressing every reader, not merely the Gentile readers (Hofmann), advances in its individualizing application: Galatians 4:5, ἀπολάβωμεν; Galatians 4:6, ἔστε; Galatians 4:7, εἶ. Comp. Galatians 5:26, Galatians 5:1.

εἰ δὲ υἱὸς, καὶ κληρονόμος] But if thou art a son (and not a slave, who does not inherit from his master), thou art also an heir, as future possessor of the Messianic salvation, and art so (not in any way through the law, but) through God (διὰ Θεοῦ; see the critical notes), who, as a consequence of His adoption of thee as a son, has made thee also His heir. To Him thou art indebted for this ultimate blessing, to be attained by means of sonship. This διὰ Θεοῦ cannot also apply to υἱός (Hofmann), so that ἀλλʼ should include all the rest of the verse in one sentence. With εἰ δέ a new sentence begins. Otherwise Paul must have written: ἀλλʼ υἱὸς, υἱὸς δὲ ὢν καὶ κληρονόμος. Rückert unjustly blames the apostle for having, in εἰ δὲ υἱὸς, καὶ κληρ., departed from the right track of his thoughts, because in Galatians 4:1 he had started at once from the idea of κληρονόμος. But in Galatians 4:1 the apostle, in fact, has not started from the Messianic idea of κληρονόμος, but from its lower analogue in civil life. With respect to the legal aspect of the conclusion itself, εἰ δὲ υἱὸς, καὶ κληρ. (comp. Romans 8:17),—in which, by the way, the father is conceived as dividing the inheritance during his lifetime,—the idea is not based on the Jewish law of inheritance,[184] according to which the (legitimately born) sons alone,[185] if there were such,—the first-born among these taking, according to Deuteronomy 21:17, a double portion,—were, as a rule, intestate heirs (see Keil, Archäol. II. § 142; Ewald, Alterth. p. 238 f.; Saalschütz, M. R. p. 820 f.). The apostle’s idea is founded on the intestate succession of the Roman law, with which Paul as a Roman citizen was acquainted, as in fact it was well known in the provinces and applied there as regarded Roman citizens. Comp. also Fritzsche, Tholuck, and van Hengel, on Romans 8:17. According to the Roman law sons and daughters, whether born in marriage or adopted children (and Paul conceives Christians as belonging to the latter class), were intestate heirs. It is evident in itself, and from Galatians 3:28, that υἱός, which Paul used here on account of its correlation with δοῦλος, does not, in the popular mode of expression, exclude the female sex. On the whole of this subject, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, utrum Pauli argumentatio Romans 8:17 et Galatians 4:7, Hebraeo an Romano jure aestimanda sit, in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 143 ff. To assume a mere allusion to general human laws of succession (Wieseler) is not sufficient; for Paul has very distinctly and clearly conceived and designated the υἱότης of the Christian as a relation of adoption, which presupposes for his conclusion as to the heirship a special legal reference, and not merely the general and vague correlation of the ideas of childship and heirship. The clear precision of his thought vouches for this, and it ought not to be evaded by declaring such a legal question even foolish (Hofmann),—a dogmatical judgment which is all the more precipitate, as the specific Johannean idea of the divine begetting of the children of God (comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 717 ff.) can by no means be found in the Pauline πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας[186] (see on Romans 8:15). Besides, ΥἹΟΘΕΣΊΑ is, and after all remains, nothing else than the quite definite legal idea of adoption, which separates the υἱοί εἰσποιητοί or ΘΕΤΟΊ (Pollux, iii. 21) from those begotten or ΓΝΗΣΙΟΊ.

[184] So Grotius, who says: “Jure Hebr. filii tantum haeredes, sed sub illo nomine indicantur omnes fideles cujusque sint sexus.” The fact that Christians are the adopted children of God, is decidedly opposed to this.

[185] In Proverbs 17:2 nothing is said of adoption.

[186] The adoption into the state of children takes place on God’s part along with justification, and is on man’s part certain to the believing self-consciousness, to which the πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας also attests it. Beyschlag (Christol. p. 222) wrongly holds that the communication of the Spirit is itself the υἱοθεσία. No, those who receive the Spirit are already believing, justified, and thereby υἱόθετοι, and obtain through the Spirit the testimony that they are υἱοί,—a testimony which agrees with that of their own consciousness, συμμαρτυρεῖ, Romans 8:16.