Galatians 2:17 Komentář

The apostle, in this chapter, continues the relation of his past life and conduct, which he had begun in the former; and, by some further instances of what had passed between him and the other apostles, makes it appear that he was not beholden to them either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority as an apostle, as his adversaries would insinuate; but, on the contrary, that he was owned and approved even by them, as having an equal commission with them to this office. I. He particularly informs them of another journey which he took to Jerusalem many years after the former, and how he behaved himself at that time (Gal 2:1-10). And, II. Gives them an account of another interview he had with the apostle Peter at Antioch, and how he was obliged to behave himself towards him there. From the subject-matter of that conversation, he proceeds to discourse on the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, without the works of the law, which it was the main design of this epistle to establish, and which he enlarges more upon in the two following chapters.

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 2 In this chapter the apostle proceeds with the narrative of himself, and gives an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, where he had a conversation with the chief of the apostles; in which they approved of his ministry, allowed of his commission, and took him into fellowship with them, but gave him no new instructions, nor added to his spiritual light and knowledge; from whence it appeared that the Gospel he preached was not after men, or received from men, as he had asserted in the preceding chapter; and he also gives an account of his meeting with Peter at Antioch, and how he reproved him for some judaizing practices; which leads him to assert the doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; which is the grand point he had in view to establish in this epistle, and which he vindicates from the charge of licentiousness. He begins with an account of another journey of his to Jerusalem, the circumstances of which he relates, as the time when, fourteen years ago; the persons he took with him as his companions, Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1 what moved him to it, a revelation from God; and the business he did when come thither, he communicated the Gospel, and that not to any but to such that were of reputation, and not publicly but privately; his end was, that it might appear how successful he had been in his ministry, and had not laboured in vain, Gal 2:2 then follows a narrative of a particular event relating to Titus, who is described as one of his companions, and by his nation, a Greek; and who though an uncircumcised person, yet the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not oblige him to be circumcised, which showed that they were of the same mind with the apostle in this point, Gal 2:3 and the reason of it was because of the false teachers, that they might not give them any handle; who are described by their character, false brethren, by their private manner of getting in among the saints, and by their ends and views, which were to spy out their Christian liberty and bring them into bondage, Gal 2:4 to whom the apostle opposed himself, and would not give way for the least space of time; for this end, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with the Gentiles, Gal 2:5 and as for the apostles, though they were men of great character and reputation, nor would the apostle detract from it; yet they added nothing to him, he received nothing from them, Gal 2:6 but, on the other hand, partly because they saw that as the Gospel to be preached to the Jews was committed to Peter, so the same Gospel to be preached to the Gentiles was committed to Paul; and partly because of the same efficacy and success in the ministry of the one as in the ministry of the other; as also because they perceived what gifts of grace were bestowed on the apostle; they gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, as a token of their mutual agreement, and as being of the same society, Gal 2:7 nor did they give him and Barnabas anything in charge, but only to remember the poor, to which he was forward enough of himself, Gal 2:10 after which follows an account of an opposition made by the apostle to Peter, which was done at Antioch, and to his face, and not without reason, Gal 2:11 for whereas some time before he ate with the Gentiles, which was commendable in him, he afterwards declined conversation with them, moved to it by fear of the converted Jews, Gal 2:12 and such was the force of his example, that other Jews, who before did not scruple eating with the Gentiles, separated likewise, and even Barnabas himself, Paul's companion, Gal 2:13 wherefore seeing this was not walking according to the Gospel of Christ, and with that integrity and uprightness which became such persons, the apostle publicly reproved Peter, and expostulated with him; partly on account of his former conversation with the Gentiles, though he himself was a Jew, and therefore it was absurd and contradictory in him to oblige the Gentiles to live as the Jews did, Gal 2:14 and partly on account of the ledge which he and Peter and others who were Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles, had of the doctrine of justification; that it was not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ; for to this end they had believed in Christ that they might be justified, not by the one, but by the other; which doctrine is confirmed by a passage referred to in Psa 149:2 and whereas it might be objected that this doctrine of free justification opened a door to licentiousness, the apostle answers to it by an abhorrence of it, Gal 2:17 and by observing that this would build up what he had destroyed, Gal 2:18 besides, he argues the contrary from his being dead to the law, that he might live unto God, Gal 2:19 and from his crucifixion with Christ, and of the old man with his deeds; and from Christ's living in him, and his living by faith upon him, Gal 2:20 and for the further confirmation of the doctrine of justification being by faith, and not by works, he suggests, were it otherwise, both the grace of God would be frustrated and made void, and the death of Christ be in vain, Gal 2:21.

But if while we seek to be justified by Christ,.... As they did, and not only sought for, but obtained what they sought for, because they sought for it at the hands of Christ, and not as it were by works, but by faith, even a justifying righteousness in him. We ourselves also are found sinners; that is, either we should be so, were we not to rest here, but seek to join our own works with Christ's righteousness for our justification, and so make Christ the minister of sin, of an imperfect righteousness, which cannot justify, which God forbid should ever be done by us; or we are reckoned sinners by you, judaizing Christians, for leaving the law, and going to Christ for righteousness; and if so, Christ must be the minister of sin, for he has directed and taught us so to do; but God forbid that any such thing should be said of him: or if we are still sinners, and unjustified persons, notwithstanding we seek to Christ to be justified by him, but need the law, and the works of it to justify us, then Christ, instead of being a minister of righteousness, is a minister of the law, the strength of sin, which accuses for it, and is the ministration of condemnation and death on account of it, which God forbid should ever be: or this is an objection of the adversary to the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if it made void the law, discouraged the performance of good works, opened a door to licentiousness that men might continue sinners, and live as they wish, being under no restraints of the law, or under obligation to obedience it, and by such doctrine make Christ the minister of sin; who hereby teaches men to live in sin, and in the neglect of duty; to which the apostle answers, God forbid; as holding such consequences in the utmost abhorrence and detestation; see Rom 6:1.

For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he shall not be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits.

"But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?" If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but condemned for such abandonment,-then shall we find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our condemnation. Observe how, he has resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity. And mark how earnestly and strongly he argues. For if, he says, it behooved us not to abandon the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ's sake, we shall be judged. Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is more intimately acquainted with it than any one? Hath not God declared to him, that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision; and did he not in his discussion with the Jews rest his bold opposition upon the vision which he saw? Did he not send from Jerusalem unequivocal decrees upon this subject? Paul's object is not therefore to correct Peter, but his animadversion required to be addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples; and not only at the Galatians, but also at others who labor under the same error with them. For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the sabbath with the Jews, they equally exclude themselves from grace. If Christ avails not to those who are only circumcised, much more is peril to be feared where fasting and sabbatizing are observed, and thus two commandments of the Law are kept in the place of one. And this is aggravated by a consideration of time: for they so acted at first while the city and temple and other institutions yet existed; but these who with the punishment of the Jews, and the destruction of the city before their eyes, observe more precepts of the Law than the others did, what apology can they find for such observance, at the very time when the Jews themselves, in spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it? Thou hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law? How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews? Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter? But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out. If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices? If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all. If omitting one part makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts. If a transgression of the whole is not punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former. But if we are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law. If it ought to be kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not understand what these Judaizers are compassing? They would make Christ, who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul says, "Therefore Christ is the minister of sin." Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to do by way of overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple protestation, "God forbid:" for shamelessness and irreverence need not be met by processes of reasoning, but a mere protest is enough.

(Vers. 17, 18.) Therefore, by the works of the Law, all flesh will not be justified. But if we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if the things that I destroyed, I build again, I make myself a transgressor. That flesh, of which it is written, 'All flesh is grass, and all its glory is like the flower of the field' (Isaiah 40:6), will not be justified by the works of the Law. But that flesh of Jesus Christ is justified by faith, of which it is said in the sacrament of the resurrection: All flesh shall see the salvation of God (Luke 3:6). But also according to a lower understanding, not all flesh was justified by the Law, but only those men who were in Palestine. Now, however, all flesh is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, while his Church is founded throughout the whole world.

Suppose that we, after receiving faith in Christ, do in Christ what the Jews do. Suppose we have received faith in Christ and wish to be justified in it. Suppose we have understood that a man is not justified by the works of the law. Would we not then, by observing the works of the law, be made sinners? Then it would be the case that Christ, whom we received in order not to sin, would himself become a minister of sin. Now, when after receiving him we return to sin—that is, to the old covenant—is Christ made a minister of sin? Let this possibility, Paul says, be far from us. One ought not to think in this way and act so as to make Christ a minister of sin, when he suffered in order that sin might perish.

Paul says in effect: “We have forsaken the law and come over to Christ, expecting to enjoy righteousness through faith in him. But suppose that this itself is counted as a transgression. The fault would then pertain to Christ the Lord himself. For it was he who gave us the New Testament. Far be it from us to tolerate such blasphemy!”

"If, seeking to be justified in Christ." If, then, wishing to be justified through Christ, we have been found sinners by abandoning the law, he says, has Christ therefore become a promoter of sin to you? Do you see how by pushing to an absurd conclusion he exposes the law? If then you hold to the law and wish also to be justified through Christ, you are found sinners in abandoning the law. Has Christ therefore advocated this? By no means. The absurdity has been removed by the refutation of the proposition.

Look at the absurd direction into which he leads those who are attached to the Law. If the faith in Christ, he says, is not sufficient to justify, but, once again there is a need to uphold the Law, and if those, having left the Law for Christ, are not justified in doing so, but rather are condemned, then Christ will be found to be the cause of our condemnation, since we left the law on his account in order to run towards the faith. “God forbid,” he says. Seeing the absurdity, which this doctrine leads to, he immediately turns away from it by using this aphorism.

We sought to obtain justification in Christ, he says, having abandoned the law. How then do you say that it is sinful to abandon the law: for it turns out that Christ led us into such a sin, since for His sake we abandoned everything pertaining to the law. Thus Christ, as you say, not only did not justify us, but even became for us the cause of greater condemnation by having persuaded us to depart from the law. Having driven the argument to absurdity, he no longer had need of confirmation, but contented himself with a simple denial, which is what he ordinarily always did in matters that were generally disputable.

After proving by the apostles' manner of life that the works of the Law ought not to be observed, the Apostle raises a question to the contrary. About this he does three things: First, he raises the question; Secondly, he solves it (v. 17): "God forbid"; Thirdly, he explains his solution (v. 19). The first point can be developed in two ways according to a Gloss. First, thus: Someone could say that the apostles sinned by abandoning the Law and turning to the faith of Christ. But the Apostle shows that this would lead to the following unwelcome conclusion, namely, that Christ is the author of sin in calling men to His faith. This is what he means when he says, "But if we apostles, while we seek to be justified in him," i.e., through Him, namely, Christ, "are found," i.e., plainly proven to be "sinners" for leaving the Law, "is Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., is He inducing us to sin, Who called us from the slavery of the Law to His faith? "Made under the law that he might redeem them that were under the law" (4:4), namely, from the burden of the Law. The Apostle answers, "God forbid," because He is rather the minister of justice; "By the obedience of one, many shall be made just" (Rom 5:19); "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22). That Christ is not the minister of sin in leading one from the Old Law is plain, because "if I" myself, by wanting to glory once more in the Law, "build up again" the things I have destroyed, namely, my pride taking glory in the Law, "I make myself a prevaricator" in taking up what I destroyed: "The dog is returned to his vomit" (2 Pet. 2:22); "Cursed be the man that shall raise up and build the city of Jericho" (Jos. 6:26). He says, "which I have destroyed," i.e., not the Law itself, as the Manicheans would have it, because the Law is holy (Rom 7:12), but pride in the Law, concerning which it is said in Romans (10:3): "For they, seeking to establish their own justice have not submitted themselves to the justice of God." Now if someone were to object that since he formerly had wasted the faith of Christ, he makes himself a prevaricator by trying to build it up, the plain answer is that he did indeed try to destroy the faith of Christ, yet because of the truth he did not persist: "Why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (Acts 9:4). But pride in the Law was vain and this pride could be destroyed, never again to be re-established. The second way in which it can be developed is to refer his statement, "we ourselves are found sinners," not to their abandoning the Law, as in the first explanation, but to the observance of the Law. For it is plain that anyone who seeks to be made just does not profess himself to be just but a sinner. The sense, therefore, is this: "if we, in seeking to be justified in Christ, are" by the very fact of seeking to be justified "found," i.e., reasonably proved, to have been "sinners," because we observed the Law, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin?" i.e., commanding men to observe the works of the Law after His passion—something that cannot be done without sin? Note that this explanation harmonizes with Jerome's opinion which posited that the legal justifications were deadly immediately after the passion of Christ. It is possible to explain "we ourselves are found to be sinners" in a third way as referring, indeed, to the state in which the Law was observed; not that they offended by observing the Law, but that the Law is deficient and cannot remove sin. Hence the meaning is this: If in seeking to be justified in it, we ourselves are found to be sinners, i.e., still in our sins, because the Law does not remove sin—according to Romans (3:9): "For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin"—"Is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin," so as to bring us back to observing the Law in which we are under sin? This explanation accords with Augustine's exposition. And he answers to either explanation, "God forbid," because I destroyed the Law understood carnally by judging and teaching it spiritually. Hence, if I should desire to re-establish the observances of the carnal law, I would be a prevaricator of the spiritual law. Furthermore, it can be explained in a fourth way, thus: I had said that man is not justified by the works of the Law. But someone might say, "Nor by the faith of Christ either," because many sin after embracing the faith of Christ. And this is what he says: "If we, seeking to be justified in Christ," i.e., by the faith of Christ, "are ourselves," who have become believers by embracing the faith of Christ, "found to be sinners," i.e., living in sin, "is Jesus Christ then the minister of sin" and of damnation, as the minister of the Old Law is a minister of sin and damnation? Not that the Law led one into sin, but was its occasion, because it forbade sin and conferred no grace to help one resist sin. Hence it is said: "But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence" (Rom 7:8). But Christ gives a helping grace: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn 1:17). Hence in no way is He the minister of sin, either directly or as its occasion.

The apostle mentions his journey to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, Gal 2:1. Shows that he went thither by revelation; and what he did while there, and the persons with whom he had intercourse, Gal 2:2-8. How the apostles gave him the right hand of fellowship, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:10. Here he opposes Peter at Antioch, and the reason why, Gal 2:11-14. Shows that the Jews as well as the Gentiles must be justified by faith, Gal 2:15, Gal 2:16. They who seek this justification should act with consistency, Gal 2:17, Gal 2:18. Gives his own religious experience, and shows, that through the law he was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:20. Justification is not of the law, but by the faith of Christ, Gal 2:21.

But if while we seek to be justified - If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death? God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.

HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21) Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Act 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY]. Titus . . . also--specified on account of what follows as to him, in Gal 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Act 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.

Greek, "But if, seeking to be justified IN (that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in the Gospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselves also were found (in your and my former communion with Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that now we resume, we should be regarded, since we have cast aside the law, thus having put ourselves in the same category as the Gentiles, who, being without the law, are, in the Jewish view, "sinners," Gal 2:15), is therefore Christ, the minister of sin?" (Are we to admit the conclusion, in this case inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, so has become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the position of "sinners," as the Judaic theory, if correct, would make us, along with all others who are "without the law," Rom 2:14; Co1 9:21; and with whom, by eating with them, we have identified ourselves?) The Christian mind revolts from so shocking a conclusion, and so, from the theory which would result in it. The whole sin lies, not with Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemous inference. But his false theory, though "seeking" from Christ, we have not "found" salvation (in contradiction to Christ's own words, Mat 7:7), but "have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles) found" to be "sinners," by having entered into communion with Gentiles (Gal 2:12).