Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

justified by faith only, ch. iii. 1—9; that all who stood upon the ground of the law, were and must be under the curse, r'. 10; but that Christ had suffered the penalty of the law, v. 13, so that by simply believing in him, a man could obtain the blessing of Abraham, or justification, v. 14. To the objection that the law was a dispensation established by God, and therefore binding, he answers, that the system of salvation by faith had been established long before the other, v. 17; and that the law was, in fact, not intended to be an independent scheme by which men were to be saved, v. 18, 19. but was intended to act a part subservient to the Gospel, until the full establishment of the latter, and was then to be set aside, v. 25. He then commences and continues in a strain of urgent intreaty, and strong expostulation, through the first part of chap. iv. and closes what he says on this subject by referring to the history of Isaac and Ishmael, which has been considered.

The question now is, what was his design in making this reference? It has, I think, been proved above, that we have in Isaac an actual instance of one standing upon the ground which the Apostles wished the Galatians to take and maintain; and in Ishmael an instance of one, on the ground from which he wished to guard them. We should say then, a priori, that when referring in this place to Isaac and Ishmael, he probably designed to show, by the actual instance of these two individuals, the different condition and fate of those who embraced the Gospel as he preached it, and of those who believed and embraced the doctrines of the false teachers. The reason for this supposition is, that the historic narrative to which he refers, affords an instance pertinent to his purpose, exactly a case calculated to enforce all he had been urging. Now, is it probable that he has referred to this passage containing facts capable of direct application to his object, and yet passed by these, and made another and very different use of it?

But that he has referred to it, for the express purpose just supposed probable, appears to be proved by his own words. The introduction has the aid of an appeal to a case parallel to theirs, v. 21. “ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons : he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise.” And, throughout the whole passage, there is no intimation that Isaac


and Ishmael are referred to with any other design, v. 28. “ Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." v. 29. “But as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is

Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture, &c.” So far, then, the design of the Apostle seems plain, and the execution of it clear and forcible.

But what shall we do with verses 24–26? Are they not inconsistent with the explanation just given? If they are, it must fall to the ground. The Apostle says, v. 24, "A rwa έστιν αλληγορούμενα. The signification of αλληγορούμενα is first to be considered. 'Aranyopia is defined by Donnegan, to signify, 1. A discourse, or saying, bearing a different sense from the obvious one. 2. An explanation in a different sense. So, also, únanyopéw signifies, 1. To speak in such a manner, as to carry a sense different from the obvious meaning of the words: 2. To interpret in such a manner.

With Donnegan agree, in substance, all others who have given definitions of these words. Scapula defines áranyopów, “ Aliud verbis, aliud sensu ostendo. Sæpe etiam est aliter interpretari quam verba præ se ferunt.” And únaryopsogar dicun

” tur ea quorum interpretatio affertur diversa a verbis quibus scribuntur aut dicuntur. Est etiam allegoricè dici." The passive, áranyopežogat, then, signifies, 1. To have a meaning different from the obvious one: 2. To be explained in a sense different from the obvious meaning. Next, is dotin

, ρούμενα synonymous with αλληγορείται? Matthei says, Gram

, mar, § 559, that the participle with the finite verb, makes merely a circumlocution for the proper verb; and participles of all verbs, with the verb eiuí. He then cites many classical examples, as Iliad, s. 873, teTimótes squév for tetnýxousv. Herodotus, I. 57, xoar i'entes for r'eoar. This idiom is not less common in the New Testament. Mar. xiii. 20. The stars of heaven foovrac {x Alttovtes, &c. See Winer, § 39. 2. He adds, however, in a note, that sometimes the tiva, is to be taken separately, and then the participle stands for an adjective. Mar. v. 5, 6. If the present is an instance of the first Sort of usage, ie. έστιν αλληγορούμενα for αλληγορείται, then, according to the above definitions, the words will mean either, “Which things are explained allegorically; or, which things are spoken allegorically.” The rendering so common now,

. “Which things may be (in accommodation) explained allegorically,” has no foundation in grammar, and is founded on the general view such interpreters have taken of the whole passage. And if this remark is true, are not all those interpretations which come under the 2d and 3d classes, set aside? But what is meant by “Which things are explained allegorically?” Did the Apostle refer to the fact, that the Jews of his day allegorized this part of the Old Testament narrative? and then, did he mean to demand for this interpretation of these unbelievers, the force of a divine precept? or, did the Apostle mean to maintain the principle, that an allegorical explanation of a passage, which has really but one plain meaning, should be attended to, and regarded so much as to lead them to renounce their Judaism? For that this is the design of this whole passage, is the plain implication of v. 21, 22. Adhering to this signification of áranyopoúuera, we can understand "A tua,&c, only in one way, viz. “Which are (now, by me) allegorically explained.” But according to this, Paul, in the first place, professedly puts upon the passage a sense which does not belong to it; and, secondly, betrays his design to those he is addressing; a certain way of destroying the effect he wished it to have. The other signification of the word would give this meaning to the passage; “which things are spoken allegorically.” If anyopomusva is taken as an adjective, agreeable to Winer, as above noticed, it amounts to the same; “ which things are allegorized,” according to the common version. Instances of this use, both of the verb and of the participle in an adjective sense, are cited by different commentators. Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. p. 185, “ The one kind (of characters) communicating their meaning by imitation (of the thing designed,) the other banyopobusyur xata tevas aivíyuovs, express their sense by allegories.” Eustathius; “ This cyclops, sis Ovuor árangopīrai, is allegorically anger.” In the life of Homer, p. 325, it is said, concerning the marriage of Jupiter and Juno, related by him, dozei tavra osaanyoperohal, these things appear to be allegorical, viz. as it is added, that Juno signifies the air, and Jupiter the æther. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromat. v. 11, opus emangoperae dový: the serpent is allegorically pleasure.

The following are instances of the participle used adjectively. Philo de Cherub. “The leaders of the sect have left many monuments (or works) áranyopovuévas ideas of the allegorical kind.” Heraclides Ponticus, in Allegor. Hom. says, that the fable of Homer, in which he represents Thetis and Briareus releasing Jupiter from chains, can be excused only

εαν επιδείξωμεν αλληγορουμένον τον μύθον, if we represent the fable as allegorical

All this is certainly enough to prove that the words istu áranyogoíueva may be rendered are allegorical; and this rendering is, doubtless, for the reasons given in the examination of the other, to be preferred. Nay, this use of the word seems to be most common. The plain statement of v. 24– 26, then, would be," which things are allegorical. For these (two women) are the two covenants; one from Mount Sinai, which brings forth to servitude, and corresponds to the city Jerusalem, and is in bondage with its children; but the Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all."

My first remark as to these verses is, that in their plain meaning, they agree with no hypothesis yet made, in explanation of the passage. If Paul is to be understood, for instance, as we understand Heraclides, in the last quotation, he is made to say that the Mosaic narrative was not a history of real occurrences, but was framed with the design of representing by symbolical personages the two covenants, and those embraced under them. They agree most nearly with that of the double sense. “ These characters are real historical characters; the events recorded actually took place; but, besides their nature, as matters of simple fact, they are also allegorical representations of spiritual things.” But then, reasons have been given, showing that this hypothesis is not true. The one, simple, historical meaning of the passage, which admits and requires no secondary one, has been exhibited above. The hypothesis next mentioned, which, for brevity's sake may be called the German, denies that the things which Paul finds in the passage, are there, either literally or allegorically, and the same ground is maintained by Borger.

I would remark further, that it is very improbable that the Apostle has made a second and allegorical use of a passage, when the real one exactly suited his purpose; or that he has first given the passage a defective, secular meaning, and then allegorized that into a second spiritual one, when the real meaning was itself spiritual and applicable. On the contrary, if, in the passage we meet with something of the external form of allegory, it is highly probable that the allegorical meaning given to the quotation, will be found to be nothing but its real genuine sense, and the use to which it is applied, one to which it is literally and historically applica

vol. IV. No. IV.-3 Y

ble. And why may not this be the specific state of the case before us? Here is the exterior, the drapery of allegory, but beneath this suspicious, or, perhaps, splendid outside, there is all the honesty or homeliness of the simple truth.

The plain reason for this opinion is, that the original passage, as explained and illustrated above, by independent evi. dence drawn from inspiration itself, seems to contain all that the Apostle finds there. What conclusion, then, can be drawn, other than that just mentioned ?

But a question meets us here, If the Apostle has used the passage in its plain true meaning, why has he thrown his argument into an allegorical form? The reason, doubtless, is to be sought in the almost universal mode of religious teaching and writing in his day. The allegorical was a mode of instruction which had been current from the earliest ages; and was at this time, especially among the Jewish doctors, almost exclusively followed. It would be very easy, but the undertaking would perhaps be more curious than useful, to prove this assertion by actual quotations from the Jewish writers and the Christian fathers. To mention but one instance, Philo, allegorizing this same passage, makes Sarah to represent virtue, and Hagar science. Science is the handmaid of virtue, and prepares the mind to receive and carry out into practice its instructions, when it may safely be discarded and forgotten. This mode of teaching (by allegories) appears every where in the Bible. Jotham used allegory in his speech to the Shechemites, Jud. ix. 7–15; the prophets frequently used the allegory or the parable in their instructions, Isa. v. 1–6; and Christ himself, has made more use of the parable than of any other mode of speaking. Does he wish to warn the people against neglecting the instructions which they heard? He speaks the parable of the sower. Does he wish to show the Jews their wickedness, and guilt, and impending ruin? He relates the story of the vineyard and the husbandmen. Does he wish to illustrate the readiness of God to receive and pardon returning sinners? He tells of the prodigal son. This will serve to show how familiar the parabolic or allegorical style was, both to teachers and people of that day; and this fact is sufficient to account for the allegorical shape of the Apostle's argument in the passage under consideration.

Again, the supposition is easy, and is sustained by facts, that the circumstances or events chosen as the foundation of

« AnteriorContinuar »