Galatians 2:18 Kommentar

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.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed,.... Which must be understood not of good things, for formerly he destroyed the faith of the Gospel, at least as much as in him lay, and now he built it up, established, and defended it; in doing which he did no evil, or made himself a transgressor, but the reverse; he showed himself a faithful minister of Christ: but of things not lawful, such as the rites and ceremonies of the law of Moses, which were now abrogated, and he had declared to be so all over the Gentile world; and therefore should he go about to establish these things as necessary to salvation, or teach men to join the observance of them with Christ's righteousness for justification, then, says he, I make myself a transgressor: for he could not be otherwise, be the case how it would with respect to the abrogation, or non-abrogation of the law; for if the law was not abolished, then he made himself a transgressor of it; by neglecting it himself, and teaching others to do so; and if it was abolished, then it must be criminal in him to enforce the observance of it as necessary to a sinner's justification before God. Now though the apostle transfers this to himself, and spoke in his own person to decline all invidious reflections and characters; yet he tacitly regards Peter, and his conduct, who had been taught by the vision the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and acted accordingly by conversing and eating with the Gentiles, and had declared that law to be an insupportable yoke of bondage, which the Gentiles were not obliged to come under; and yet now, by his practice and example, built up and established those very things he had before destroyed, and therefore could not exculpate himself, from being a transgressor: or these things may regard sins and immoralities in life and conversation; and the apostle's sense be, that should he, or any other, take encouragement to sin from the doctrine of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, as if he was the author and minister of sin, and allowed persons in it; this would be to establish sin, which the righteousness of Christ justifies from, and engage in a living in sin, to which, by Christ's righteousness, they are dead unto; than which, nothing can be, a greater contradiction, and which must unavoidably make them not only transgressors of the law, by sinning against it, but apostates, as the word here used signifies, from the Gospel; such must act quite contrary to the nature, use, and design of the Gospel in general, and this doctrine in particular, which teaches men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and that being dead to sin, they should live unto righteousness.

Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown." The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth -in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.

How should (the Church) fear to suffer a fraudulent loss of him whom she had already lost on his ereption, and whom, after condemnation, she could not have held? Lastly, to what will it be becoming for a judge to grant indulgence? to that which by a formal pronouncement he has decisively settled, or to that which by an interlocutory sentence he has left in suspense? And, of course, (I am speaking of) that judge who is not wont "to rebuild those things which he has destroyed, lest he be held a transgressor."

"For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." Observe the Apostle's discernment; his opponents endeavored to show, that he who kept not the Law was a transgressor, but he retorts the argument upon them, and shows that he who did keep the Law was a transgressor, not merely of faith, but of the Law itself. "I build up again the things which I destroyed," that is, the Law; he means as follows: the Law has confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned it, and betaken ourselves to the salvation which comes of faith. But if we make a point of setting it up again, we become by that very act transgressors, striving to keep what God has annulled. Next he shows how it has been annulled.

(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.

We have nullified the law by allowing it, and have run to Christ. If then we seek to establish it again, we make ourselves transgressors in that we attempt to set up again what was dissolved by us. But observe his sense: those men thought themselves transgressors because they did not keep the law; he shows that they are transgressors because they hold to it. "I consider myself a transgressor." For by once more obeying the law, I show that as a transgressor I first permitted myself, and I believed in Christ.

When they say that he who does not keep the law is a transgressor, he says the exact opposite, calling a transgressor the person who keeps the law. It is like saying: The law has ceased, as we confessed, and so, having abandoned it, we have taken refuge with the salvation which is from faith. If, then, we contest about the application of the law, we become transgressor of the same, inasmuch as we contest about keeping what has been dissolved by God.

Notice his wisdom: they were saying that the one who violates the law is a transgressor, but he, on the contrary, shows that the one who observes it is a transgressor, going not only against the faith, but also against the law itself. For the law itself led me to the faith and persuaded me to leave it. Further on he will point this out, but for now he says that the law has ceased, and we have testified to this by the fact that we destroyed it, having departed from it. Therefore, if we were to endeavor to restore it, we would prove to be transgressors, restoring that which was destroyed by God.

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.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed - If I act like a Jew, and enjoin the observance of the law on the Gentiles, which I have repeatedly asserted and proved to be abolished by the death of Christ, then I build up what I destroyed, and thus make myself a transgressor, by not observing the law in that way in which I appear to enjoin the observance of it upon others.

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, "For if the things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those very things I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjecting myself to the law), I prove myself (literally, 'I commend myself') a transgressor." Instead of commending yourself as you sought to do (Gal 2:12, end), you merely commend yourself as a transgressor. The "I" is intended by Paul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case, not Paul's own, that is described. A "transgressor" is another word for "sinner" (in Gal 2:17), for "sin is the transgression of the law." You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are proving yourself a "sinner," or "transgressor," in your having set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thus you are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, and you debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theory He becomes a minister of sin.