Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:17

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:17” utilice nuestra app.

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

17. while we seek ] Rather, while seeking, i.e. earnestly desiring. The reference is to the time when they embraced the Gospel. Hence, for ‘are found’, read, “were found”, found ourselves in the same position as those ‘sinners’ of the Gentiles, whom we had been accustomed to look down upon, and needing, like them, a free salvation.

we ourselves ] not necessarily, ‘I and Peter’ (see note on Gal 2:14), but we who, as Jews, inherited the advantages of the chosen race.

is therefore of sin ? ] Are we to accept the inference that Christ is the minister of sin? The word ‘sin’ has direct reference to ‘sinners’ in the former clause. The Judaizers might taunt the Apostle with the suggestion, that, as faith in Christ had made them ‘sinners’, Christ had become a minister to a state of sin.

minister of sin ] The antithesis occurs 2Co 11:15, “ministers of righteousness”. Is Christ, who is the author and finisher of our faith, employed in a service, which so far from emancipating men from sin, promotes sin?

God forbid ] Lit. let it not come to pass! This formula is used by St Paul fourteen times to express a strong denial and utter repudiation of some proposition, either put forward by himself, or suggested by an opponent. “Away with such a thought!” There is of course neither ‘God’ nor ‘forbid’ in the Greek, but the English phrase is an excellent idiomatic equivalent.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

17 21. The argument of these verses is somewhat obscure an obscurity due, partly to the inadequacy of language to express the intensity of the Apostle’s feelings, partly to the introduction of metaphorical expressions, which elude the attempt to define them accurately.

St Paul, like other Jewish believers, earnestly desiring to escape the penalty of conscious sin, had abandoned all trust in the law, and had thrown himself entirely on the mercy of God in Jesus Christ. If he is now told that in doing this, he and they had foregone their privileges as children of Abraham, and reduced themselves to the position of sinners of the Gentiles ( Gal 2:15), it might be said that Christ is a minister of sin. Away with such a false conclusion! St Paul had swept away all notion of justification by obedience to the law, because he knew that a man is justified by faith apart from such obedience, and to build up the edifice which he had pulled down would be to stand self-convicted as a transgressor of the law. ‘I’, he says, ‘for one, through the law, through experience of its inability to give life, turned my back on it for ever as a ground of justification before God. I died to the law. Thenceforth, as a ground of justification, it was no more to me than to a dead man. I did this, not that I might be free from the law, as a rule of life, but that I should live the only life worth living a life impossible to me so long as I sought justification by the law a life consecrated to God. I have been speaking of dying. There is another sense in which I died. I am crucified with Christ, a partaker of His death, a death issuing in resurrection; and this resurrection life, which I share with and derive from my Divine Lord, itself not natural but spiritual, transforms my whole natural and earthly life, so that I live this latter in the faith of Jesus Christ, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not, like the Judaizers, set at nought that grace of God to which I owe so much. And yet to seek justification by works would be practically to nullify it: for if by the law man obtains justification, Christ’s death was purposeless and superfluous’.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ – The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure. Rosenmuller supposes that this is an objection of a Jew, supposing that where the Law of Moses is not observed there is no rule of life, and that therefore there must be sin; and that since the doctrine of justification by faith taught that there was no necessity of obeying the ceremonial law of Moses, therefore Christ, who had introduced that system, must be regarded as the author and encourager of sin. To me it seems probable that Paul here has reference to an objection which has in all ages been brought against the doctrine of justification by faith, and which seems to have existed in his time, that the doctrine leads to licentiousness. The objections are that it does not teach the necessity of the observance of the Law in order to acceptance with God. That it pronounces a man justified and accepted who is a violator of the Law. That his acceptance does not depend on moral character.

That it releases him from the obligation of law, and that it teaches that a man may be saved though he does not conform to law. These objections existed early, and have been found everywhere where the doctrine of justification by faith has been preached. I regard this verse, therefore, as referring to these objections, and not as being especially the objection of a Jew. The idea is, You seek to be justified by faith without obeying the Law. You professedly reject that, and do not hold that it is necessary to yield obedience to it. If now it shall turn out that you are sinners; that your lives are not holy; that you are free from the wholesome restraint of the Law, and are given up to lives of sin, will it not follow that Christ is the cause of it; that he taught it; and that the system which he introduced is responsible for it? And is not the gospel therefore responsible for introducing a system that frees from the restraint of the Law, and introduces universal licentiousness? To this Paul replies by stating distinctly that the gospel has no such tendency, and particularly by referring in the following verses to his own case, and to the effect of the doctrine of justification on his own heart and life.

We ourselves are found sinners – If it turns out that we are sinners, or if others discover by undoubted demonstration that we lead lives of sin; if they see us given up to a lawless life, and find us practicing all kinds of evil; if it shall be seen not only that we are not pardoned and made better by the gospel, but are actually made worse, and are freed from all moral restraint.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? – Is it to be traced to him? Is it a fair and legitimate conclusion that this is the tendency of the gospel? Is it to be charged on him, and on the plan of justification through him, that a lax morality prevails, and that people are freed from the wholesome restraints of law?

God forbid – It is not so. This is not the proper effect of the gospel of Christ, and of the doctrine of justification by faith. The system is not suited to produce such a freedom from restraint, and if such a freedom exists, it is to be traced to something else than the gospel.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Gal 2:17

But if, while we seek to be Justified by Christ.

I. The blasphemy of making Christ the minister of sin.

II. The perfect sufficiency of Christ for the justification of His people.

III. The impertinence of the doctrine of justification by works; as–

1. Impossible.

2. Needless.

IV. The motive that the justified have to live righteously. (W. Perkins.)

Justification by Christ guarded

I. A privilege.

1. Christ has done for us what we could not do for ourselves.

(1) Fulfilled the law;

(2) borne the penalty of its infractions; and thus

(3) delivered us from its claims.

2. He has secured for us

(1) pardon,

(2) acceptance,

(3) Divine privileges.

II. The abuse of this privilege.

1. The legalists nullified it, and thus became sinners by

(1) sinfully rejecting the only means of salvation;

(2) seeking justification in that which could only intensify the sense of sin. The Antinomians who made it an encouragement to sin.

III. The logical consequences of this abuse.

1. In the case of the legalists: if Christ fails to remove sin and the works of the law are still necessary, then Christ ministers to sin by delusive offers of salvation.

2. In the case of the Antinomians: if justification is only an incentive to presumption, Christ is morally chargeable with its guilt.

IV. The apostles horror at this conclusion.

1. It is blasphemous.

2. It is preposterous.

(1) Justification in Christ is complete and effectual.

(2) It is the strongest incentive to righteousness (Gal 2:19).

Grace and Duty

Griffiths says that travellers in Turkey carry with them lozenges of opium, on which is stamped mash Allah, the gift of God. Too many sermons are just such lozenges. Grace is preached but duty denied. Divine predestination is cried up, but human responsibility is rejected. Such teaching ought to be shunned as poisonous, but those who by reason of use have grown accustomed to the sedative, condemn all other preaching, and cry up their opium lozenges of high doctrine as the truth, the precious gift of God. It is to be feared that this poppy-juice doctrine has sent many souls to sleep who will wake up in hell. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The wickedness of Christians no argument against Christianity

One of the greatest and most plausible objections alleged by unbelievers against the Divine institution of the christian religion, is the smallness of the influence it may seem to have upon the lives and manners of its professors. It were natural to expect, if God condescended to give men an express revealed law, and to send so extraordinary a person as His own Son to promulgate that law upon earth; it were natural to expect, it should have some very visible and remarkable effect in the world, answerable to the dignity of the thing itself, and worthy of its great Author. Are there to be met withal, in the lives and manners of Christians, any considerable marks or distinguishing characters, by which it might be judged that they are really under the influence and peculiar guidance of such a Divine director? Is there, among those who call themselves Christians, less of profaneness and impiety towards God, less of fraud, injustice, and unrighteousness toward men, than among the professors of other religions? Is there not too plainly the same boundless ambition, the same insatiable covetousness, the same voluptuousness and debauchery of manners, to be found among them, as among other men? Nay, have not moreover the pretences even of religion itself, been the immediate and direct occasion of the bitterest and most implacable animosities, of the cruellest and most bloody wars, of the most barbarous and inhumane persecutions? Have not the greatest vices and immoralities of all kinds received too plain an encouragement from the reliance upon a power of repeating continually certain regular and periodical absolutions: and, much more, from an imagination that the practices of a vicious life may be compensated before God by the observance of certain weak and ridiculous ceremonies, and made amends for by superstitious commutations? Lastly, and beyond all this, hath not even the grace of God, as the apostle expresses it, been itself too frequently turned into wantonness?

I. The wickedness of the lives of those who call themselves Christians is no argument at all against the truth and excellency of the Christian religion itself. Natural and necessary causes always and necessarily produce effects proportional to their natural powers; so that from the degree or quantity of the effect, may always certainly be judged the degree of power and efficacy in the cause. But in moral causes the case is necessarily and essentially otherwise. In these, how efficacious soever the cause be, yet the effect always depends on the will of the person upon whom the effect is to be worked, whether the cause shall at all produce its proper effect or no. For as, where no Law is, there is no transgression; so on the other side, and for the same reason, where there is law, not obeyed, that law worketh wrath; and sin, by this commandment, becomes exceeding sinful. Were therefore the effect always to be the measure, in judging of the goodness and excellency of a cause, the best and wisest laws would often, upon account of their very excellency, be the worst. And the same may, in proportion, be said concerning reason itself, even the absolute and necessary reason of things. The more we are sensible of the reasonableness and necessity of moral obligations, the worse is our condition if we act unreasonably. Yet reason is of essential excellency, eternally and immutably; being the necessary result of the nature and truth of things: and the commandments of God who cannot err, are always holy and just and good (Rom 7:12). If, therefore, it be no objection against the excellency of reason itself, that it very often is not able to make men act reasonably, and no diminution to the Divine commandments in general, that they frequently not only fail of reforming mens manners, but even on the contrary do moreover make sin to become the more exceedingly sinful; then, for the same reason, neither against the truth and excellency of Christianity in particular can any argument be drawn from the wickedness of the lives of those who profess themselves Christians. But–

II. Though the practice of any wickedness whatsoever, affords no real argument against Christianity itself, yet it is always matter of very great and just reproach to the professors of this holy religion, as being the utmost contradiction and the highest possible inconsistency with their profession. Just as the Jews of old, who perpetually styled themselves the people of God, and yet fell into the vices of the heathen nations. But when anything which is a part of the Christian doctrine is itself in particular made a direct ground and immediate cause of wickedness, the case then is infinitely worse, and the reproach unspeakably greater. When the gospel is not only rendered ineffectual to prevent sin, but Christ (as the apostle in the text expresses it) made to be Himself the minister of sin; this is what St. Jude calls, Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness; or, in St. Peters language, it is, by means of the very promise of liberty, making men the servants of corruption. And of the same kind are those Christians at all times and in all places, who, upon any pretence whatsoever, set up any expedients, of whatever sort they be, either in point of doctrine or practice; as equivalents to be accepted of God, in the stead of virtue and true goodness.

III. The third and last thing I proposed to show, was, that from what has been said, there arises a very plain and easy rule by which we may judge of the malignity and dangerousness of any error in matters of religion. In proportion as the error tends to reconcile any vicious practice with the profession of religion, or (as the text expresses it) to make Christ the minister of sin, in the same proportion is the doctrine pernicious, and the teachers of it justly to be deemed corrupt. By their fruits ye shall know them. All other tests may possibly be deceitful. Fair speeches, great learning and abilities, fervent zeal, numbers, authority, strict observance of ceremonies, even worldly austerities, and the appearances of the most devotional piety; all these may possibly accompany a very false and very wicked religion. But the fruits of virtue and true goodness, these are marks which admit no counterfeit. (S. Clarke, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 17. 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Some interpreters think, that the apostle here begins his discourse to the Galatians upon the main argument of his Epistle, viz. justification by faith in Christ; though others think it began, Gal 2:15.

If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners; if (saith the apostle) you make us grievous offenders in our expectation of being justified by Christ, and not by the works of the law, you make

Christ the minister of sin, who hath taught us this. But others think that the apostle here obviateth a common objection which was then made, (as it is also in our age), against the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ; viz. That it opens a door of liberty to the flesh, and so makes Christ a minister of sin, as if he relaxed mens obligation to the law of God; which is the same objection which the apostle answered in his Epistle to the Romans, Rom 6:1-23. If while, we plead for justification by Christ, we live in a course of notorious disobedience to the law of God, then Christ must be to us a minister of sin, and come into the world to purchase for us a possibility of salvation, though we live in never so much notorious disobedience to the law of God. As if there were no obligation upon men to keep the law, unless by their obedience to it they might obtain pardon of sin and justification. This calumny the apostle disavows, first, by a general aversation:

God forbid!

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

17. Greek, “But if,seeking to be justified IN(that is, in believing union with) Christ (who has in theGospel theory fulfilled the law for us), we (you and I) ourselvesalso were found (in your and my former communionwith Gentiles) sinners (such as from the Jewish standpoint that nowwe 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,”Ga 2:15), is therefore Christ,the minister of sin?” (Are we to admit the conclusion, in thiscase inevitable, that Christ having failed to justify us by faith, sohas become to us the minister of sin, by putting us in the positionof “sinners,” as the Judaic theory, if correct, would makeus, along with all others who are “without the law,”Rom 2:14; 1Co 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, notwith Christ, but with him who would necessitate such a blasphemousinference. But his false theory, though “seeking“from Christ, we have not “found” salvation (incontradiction to Christ’s own words, Mt7:7), but “have been ourselves also (like the Gentiles)found” to be “sinners,” by having entered intocommunion with Gentiles (Ga 2:12).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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 Ro 6:1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

We ourselves were found sinners ( ). Like the Gentiles, Jews who thought they were not sinners, when brought close to Christ, found that they were. Paul felt like the chief of sinners.

A minister of sin ( ). Objective genitive, a minister to sin. An illogical inference. We were sinners already in spite of being Jews. Christ simply revealed to us our sin.

God forbid ( ). Literally, “May it not happen.” Wish about the future ( and the optative).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Are found [] . More correctly, were found : were discovered and shown to be. See Rom 6:10; 1Co 14:15; 2Co 5:3; Phi 2:8; Phi 3:9.

Sinners [] . Like the Gentiles, verse 15. Paul assumes that this was actually the case : that, seeking to be justified in Christ, they were found to be sinners. To seek to be justified by Christ is an admission that there is no justification by works; that the seeker is unjustified, and therefore a sinner. The effort to attain justification by faith in Christ develops the consciousness of sin. It compels the seeker, whether Jew or Gentile, to put himself upon the common plane of sinners. The Jew who calls the Gentile a sinner, in seeking to be justified by faith, finds himself a sinner also. The law has failed him as a justifying agency. But Paul is careful to repudiate the false inference from this fact, stated in what immediately follows, namely, that Christ is a minister of sin.

Minister of sin. A promoter of sin by causing us to abandon the law. God forbid [ ] . See on Rom 3:4. Not a reply merely to the question “is Christ a minister of sin ?” but to the whole supposition from “if while we seek.” The question is not whether Christ is in general a minister of sin, but whether he is such in the case supposed. Paul does not assume that this false inference has been drawn by Peter or the other Jewish Christians.

Gal 2:20I build again the things which I destroyed [ ] . Peter, by his Christian profession, had asserted that justification was by faith alone; and by his eating with Gentiles had declared that the Mosaic law was no longer binding upon him. He had thus, figuratively, destroyed or pulled down the Jewish law as a standard of Christian faith and conduct. By his subsequent refusal to eat with Gentiles he had retracted this declaration, had asserted that the Jewish law was still binding upon Christians, and had thus built again what he had pulled down. Building and pulling down are favorite figures with Paul. See Rom 14:20; 1Co 8:1, 10; 1Co 10:23; 1Co 14:17; Eph 2:20 f. For kataluein destroy, see on Rom 14:20; 2Co 5:1. I make myself [ ] . Better, prove myself. The verb originally means to put together : thence to put one person in contact with another by way of introducing him and bespeaking for him confidence and approval. To commend, as Rom 16:1; comp. Rom 5:8; 2Co 3:1; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 5:12. As proof, or exhibition of the true state of a case is furnished by putting things together, the word comes to mean demonstrate, exhibit the fact, as here, Rom 3:5; 2Co 6:11. A transgressor [] . See on Jas 2:11, and on parabasiv transgression, Rom 2:23. In reasserting the validity of the law for justification, which he had denied by seeking justification by faith in Christ, he proves himself a transgressor in that denial, that pulling down.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ,” (ei de zetounti dikaiothenai en Christou) “But if, as we seek to be justified or acquitted in Christ,” “if we who are Jews take our place as sinners in seeking to be justified by faith in Christ, as Gentiles do,” Note the logic: Rom 8:1; Gal 5:6.

2) “We ourselves also are found sinners,” (heurethemen kai autoi hamartoloi) “We ourselves were also or even found to be sinners, lawless ones,” Paul then affirms “We are lawless sinners, We Jews”, Rom 3:23.

3) “Is therefore Christ the minister of sin?” (ara Christos hamartias diakonos;) “Is Christ then considered a common minister of lawlessness?” Does He make us Jews to be sinners when we believe in Him? If not, why do we act like sinners in trying to seek righteousness by going back under the rituals of the Law? Rom 6:1. Is sin promoted by faith in Christ? No! 1Jn 3:5.

4) “God forbid,” (me genoito) “May (God) not let it be, or God forbid!” 2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; Heb 9:28; 1Pe 2:22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

17. If, while we seek to be justified. He now returns to the Galatians. We must take care not to connect this verse with the preceding one, as if it were a part of the speech addressed to Peter: for what had Peter to do with this argument? It certainly has very little, if anything, to do with the speech; but let every one form his own opinion.

Chrysostom, and some other commentators, make the whole passage to be an affirmation, and interpret it thus: “If, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we are not yet perfectly righteous, but still unholy, and if, consequently, Christ is not sufficient for our righteousness, it follows that Christ is the minister of the doctrine which leaves men in sin:” supposing that, by this absurd proposition, Paul insinuates a charge of blasphemy against those who attribute a part of justification to the law. But as the expression of indignant abhorrence immediately follows, which Paul is never accustomed to employ but in answer to questions, I am rather inclined to think that the statement is made for the purpose of setting aside an absurd conclusion which his doctrine appeared to warrant. He puts a question, in his usual manner, into the mouth of his antagonists. “If, in consequence of the righteousness of faith, we, who are Jews and were ‘sanctified from the womb,’ (Jer 1:5 Gal 1:15,) are reckoned guilty and polluted, shall we say that Christ makes sin to be powerful in his own people, and that he is therefore the author of sin?”

This suspicion arose from his having said that Jews, by believing in Christ, renounce the righteousness of the law; for, while they are still at a distance from Christ, Jews, separated from the ordinary pollution of the Gentiles, appear to be in some respects exempted from the appellation of sinners. The grace of Christ places them on a level with the Gentiles; and the remedy, which is common to both, shews that both had labored under the same disease. This is the force of the particle also, — we ourselves also, — meaning not any description of men, but the Jews, who stood highest.

Far from it. He properly rejects that inference. Christ, who discovers the sin which lay concealed, is not therefore the minister of sin; as if, by depriving us of righteousness, he opened the gate to sin, or strengthened its dominion. (50) The Jews were mistaken in claiming any holiness for themselves apart from Christ, while they had none. Hence arose the complaint: “Did Christ come to take from us the righteousness of the law, to change saints into polluted men, to subject us to sin and guilt?” Paul denies it, and repels the blasphemy with abhorrence. Christ did not bring sin, but unveiled it; he did not take away righteousness, but stripped the Jews of a false disguise.

(50) Εἰ παράβασις τιῦτο νεν́ομισται ὅτι τὸν νόμον καταλιπόντες ἐν Χριστῷ ζητοῦμεν δικαιωθὢναι, ἡ αἰτία εἰς αὐτὸν Χριστὸν χωρήσει. “If this be reckoned an offence, that we have forsaken the law, and seek to be justified through Christ, the blame will fall on Christ himself.” — Theodoret.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

TEXT 2:1719

(17) But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. (18) For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. (19) For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.

PARAPHRASE 2:1719

17 But if, while we apostles seek to be justified by the faith of Christ, even we ourselves are found sinners, by practising the rites of the law of Moses as necessary to salvation, contrary to our conscience, will Christ promote such iniquity, by justifying teachers who delude others in a matter of such importance? By no means.
18 For if we re-establish, by our practice, those rites as necessary to salvation, which, in our preaching, we declared not necessary, we certainly make ourselves transgressors by deceiving others.
19 Besides, to shew the folly of seeking to be justified by law, I told the Judaizers that we all, through breaking law, have died by the curse of law, so that if we live, we must live by the free gift of God, and not by law.

COMMENT 2:17

But, if while we sought to be justified in Christ

We have turned our backs on the law as a means of justification.

Going back, as you have, shows a disappointment or a dissatisfaction in the justification which we have obtained.

We as apostles must not reveal a sinful attitude.

An example, if bad, brings reproach on Christ and man.

We are saved by the works of the law or we arent.

If we return to the lawwhat will be said of Christ?

is Christ a minister of sin

If we are such sinners as to be unfit to be conversed with, or eaten with, then Christ can be accused as a minister of sin.

This is an explanation.

It is an unjust judgment to condemn Christ for mans failures.

Look hereif we the apostles favor this kind of an attitude which is sinful, then, we representing Christ, represent Him as a minister of sin.

WORD STUDY 2:17

God forbid! The older translations paraphrase the Greek me genoito (MAY GEN oi taw) (G as in go) by using this oath form. A better translation would be: Certainly not! By no means! May it never be!

The word for God (theostheh OSS) is never used in this expression in the New Testament.

COMMENT 2:18

If I build up again . . . I prove myself a transgressor

If you preach salvation through Christ, and then insist on circumcision as a test of fellowship, you are building up what the gospel ended.

If you build up what you destroyedyou are a sinner.

COMMENT 2:19

For I through the law died unto the law

How could he die to it, through it?

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. Gal. 3:24-27

In the Christ of the lawwhich the law prepared forPaul died to the law. deadthrough the body of Christ. Rom. 7:4

The law brought men to Christ. Gal. 3:24

Therefore in accepting the fulfillment of the law, Paul died to the law.

that I might live unto God

It did not loose him from duty but bound to a greater one.

Rom. 6:1-5

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Rom. 7:4

This life unto God is unique:

I give Him my burdens,

He gives me His BLESSINGS.
I give Him my trials,
He gives me His PATIENCE.
I give Him my sorrow,
He gives me His STRENGTH.
I give Him my blindness,
He gives me His LIGHT.
I give Him my cold heart,
He gives me His LOVE.
I give Christ my all,
And He gives me HEAVEN.

NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS 2:19

The history of Gods people has been one of movement from place to place. Abraham had to seek new homes. The church has been persecuted and its members driven from place to place, because of sin in the world. The Christians find brotherhood and peace.
A person may feel lonely in New York City with millions of people around him. He is very much a stranger and a foreigner, but fellowship in the church does not leave one alone.

Adam and Eve were not created to be strangers in the garden, but they eventually were out of place. God made a home for them that should have been permanent. The word says The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed (Gen. 2:8). Adam and Eve were at home in the world and in harmony with their environmentmorally, physically, and psychologically. Sin changed things.

But when sin entered, man became a wanderer. Our first parents were expelled from the garden. After his act of murder, Cain was condemned to be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth Gen. 4:12. But what happened? Cain went away from the presence of the Lord . . . and he built a city Gen. 4:16-17.

There is a great tension between the world and the church. It is only in the body of Christ that we are not strangers and foreigners.

STUDY QUESTIONS 2:1719

218.

If a person follows the law, what is he doing to Christ?

219.

Do a Christians sins make Christ a minister of sin?

220.

What is the special application of this verse to the Christian?

221.

What is meant by build up again?

222.

What had the gospel ended?

223.

What had Paul destroyed?

224.

Is the Gentile Christian today dead to the law of Moses?

225.

By what process did Paul, a Jew, die to it?

226.

What is the purpose of dying unto the law?

227.

In what relationship are we to live, when we die to sin?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(17) We sought justification in Christ. But if, with all our seeking, something more was needed: viz., a rigid performance of the Lawthat Law which we had abandonedthen there was still something wanting to our justification. We were sinners on a par with the Gentiles, and all that Christianity seemed to have done for us was to lead us deeper into sin. A profane thought!

By Christ.Strictly, in Christi.e., by the relation into which we are brought with Him. The reference is here, however, not exactly to the mystical union with Christ, which is regarded by the Apostle rather in connection with sanctification (the actual growth in holiness) than with justification (the judicial absolution from guilt). In the present instance the Apostle is speaking of justification; and when he says that we are justified in Christ, he means practically through faith in Him, or through that circle of forces within which we are brought by faith.

We ourselves also.We who were by our birth Jews, as well as the Gentiles.

Are found.Strictly, were foundi.e., at a time subsequent to our embracing Christianity, if the only result of our Christianity was that we were still sinners.

Sinners.Sinners actually, through our positive transgressions, and sinners theoretically or judicially (in the eyes of God), through the fact that we have lost the old Jewish justification through the fulfilment of the Law; while, according to this Judaising theory which St. Paul is combating, our new Christian justification is insufficient.

Is therefore Christ the minister of sin?Our English version is probably right in making this a question. It is put ironically, and as a sort of reductio ad absurdum of the Judaising position. The Judaisers maintained the necessity of a strict fulfilment of the Mosaic law. They, however, still called themselves Christians; and here St. Paul had a hold upon them. You call yourselves Christians, he says, and yet you insist upon the Mosaic law. You say that a man cannot be justified without it: it follows that we, who have exchanged the service of the Law for the service of Christ, are not justified. In other words, our relation to Christ has made us, not better, but worsea thought which no Christian can entertain.

No doubt St. Paul used some such argument as this in his controversy with St. Peter at Antioch, but it would probably be stated in a simpler and less speculative form: If you still fall back upon the separatist Jewish observances, what is the good of being a Christian? Here, in writing to the Galatians, the Apostle paraphrases what he had said in language more suited to a theological treatise and to the natural speculative bias of his own mind.

God forbid.The Judaising theory was quite sufficiently condemned by showing the consequences to which it would lead. It makes Christ Himself a minister of sina suggestion which the Apostle puts away with pious horror.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

17. Are found By our own confession, expressed in keeping the law.

Sinners Are in an unjustified state. Is therefore Christ, confessedly on our part, the minister of, the contributor to, sin, or non-justification?

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Paul Now Deals With Objections To His Statement And Stresses That The Law’s Purpose Is To Point To Christ ( Gal 2:17-21 ).

‘But, if while we have sought to be justified in Christ, we also were found sinners, is Christ made one who serves sin? God forbid. For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.’

This question can be seen in two ways. Firstly as asking – ‘Surely seeking to be ‘put in the right’ through Christ means that we are must first of all admit to being sinners and must declare ourselves sinners. Does this not, it is asked, therefore make Christ the one who serves sin?’ This question was especially relevant to converted Pharisees. They had built up a way of life that they felt had on the whole made them ‘almost good’. They were ‘by nature Jews’. Yet the Gospel was now asking them to tear down that facade and admit their sinfulness. Was this not making them sinners?

To such a question Paul replies, ‘Of course not. On the contrary, it is if I build up again what I destroyed, if I again make the Law pre-eminent, that I make myself a lawbreaker and a sinner. It is the Law that shows me where I have gone wrong and accuses me of breaking the Law’. And the more I try to observe it the more I fail. Thus if we are to speak of something as ‘promoting sin’ it is the Law that does that. And to revive it is therefore to promote sin. See for a particular example of this Rom 7:7-8.

Alternately, relating to the context, the question might be seen as asking, ‘If we seek to be justified in Christ and thus abandon the ritual requirements by which we have lived as you are demanding, thus becoming in the eyes of Jews ‘sinners’, does this not mean that Christ is acting as a servant of sin and promoting sin?’ The reply is the same. It is that by again bringing in the Law I multiply sin, for it is the Law that reveals sin. Outside the Law such things are not all sinful, but once I come under the Law sin multiplies, for I see it for what it is.

The problem for the Judaisers was that they thought that Christ’s sacrifice made present atonement for their sins, as animal sacrifices had before Jesus had died, and that after that their salvation depended on their maintaining their position by observing the Law in all its forms. Jesus had thereby become to them a super-sacrifice, a help along the way, and nothing more. And it left them in the same predicament as they had been in before. How were they to keep the Law perfectly? Paul rejects this. He says quite plainly that to take up that attitude is actually to encourage sin (compare Rom 7:8-11), for they can only fail, thus leading on to further failure, and taking them down the road to despair. He knew it because he had walked that way himself.

But how very different was the offer of the Good News made through Christ. For those who come to Christ can ignore the requirements of the Law as far as their position before God and their eternal salvation is concerned. Instead they simply trust in what He has done for them on the cross. They accept that He died for them. They accept that He has borne their sin in their place as ‘a ransom in the place of many; (Mar 10:45). And then they accept that because He has died in their place, they can go free. They are forgiven, and their sins are no longer counted against them, because they had been paid for by Christ.

But does this therefore mean that people can go on sinning as they like. He lets us know that the answer to that question is a resounding ‘No!’ based on the significance of the cross. And he now explains that significance.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Gal 2:17. Ifwe ourselves also are found sinners, Those who are under the law, having oncetransgressed, remain always sinners, unalterably so, in the eye of the law; which excludes all such from justification. The Apostle, in this place, argues thus: “We Jews, who are by birth God’s people, and not, as the profligate Gentiles, abandoned to all manner of pollution and uncleanness,not being, nevertheless, able to obtain righteousness by the deeds of the law, have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by faith in him. But if even we, who have betaken ourselves to Christ for justification, are ourselves found to be unjustified sinners, liable still to wrath, as all are under the law, what deliverance have we from sin by Christ?None at all: we are as much concluded under sin and guilt, as if we did not believe in him. So that, by joining him and the law together for justification, we shut ourselves out from justification, which cannot be had under the law; and we make Christ the minister of sin, and not of justification;which God forbid!” See the Inferences and Reflections.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Gal 2:17 . The dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter; but the protasis beginning with cannot have its apodosis in . . . (Hofmann [98] ); on the contrary, it runs on as far as , which is then followed by the interrogatory apodosis. Consequently: But if we (in order to show thee, from what has been just said, how opposed to Christ thy conduct was), although we sought to he justified in Christ, were found even on our part sinners . This protasis supposes that which must have been the case, if Peter’s Judaizing conduct had been in the right; namely, that the result would then have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice for, justification, but that it is requisite to combine with it the observance of the Jewish law. If faith does not render the superfluous, as was naturally to be concluded from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seeking after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, that the believer just stands on an equality with the Gentiles , because he has ceased to be a Jew and yet has not attained to righteousness in Christ: he is therefore now nothing else than an , just as the Gentile is. But if this is the case, the apodosis now asks, Is Christ, therefore, minister of sin (and not of righteousness)? seeing that our faith in Him, which seeks for righteousness by Him, has the sad result that we have been found like the Gentiles in a state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be it! It is a result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing about the righteousness sought in Him, should be the promoter of sin . Consequently the state of things supposed in the protasis is an anti-Christian absurdity.

The subject of and is, as before, Peter and Paul.

] emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose , . . .; so that this . is not in reality different from the ., but denotes the same thing as respects its tendency . To the then corresponds the , which introduces an entirely different result: if we have been found , if it has turned out as a matter of fact, that, etc. (Rom 7:10 ; 1Co 4:2 ; 1Co 15:15 ; 2Co 11:12 ). As to we must, however, notice that as in the apodosis . . . we cannot without proceeding arbitrarily supply anything but the simple , and not (Gal 3:21 ) the aorist requires the explanation: inventi sumus (Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, and many others [99] ), and therefore neither reperimur (Erasmus, Castalio) nor inventi essemus (de Wette and many others), nor should be found (Luther), nor were to be found (Schott). Observe, moreover, that in ., in contrast to . . ., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests itself (comp. on Mat 1:20 ).

] nothing else than what was previously put as , but expressed according to the notion that in Christ, whose person and work form the object of faith, justification has its causal basis (2Co 5:21 ; Act 13:39 ; Rom 3:24 ). Its opposite: , Gal 3:11 , and the , Rom 10:3 .

] et ipsi, also on our part , includes Peter and Paul in the class of previously referred to in Gal 2:15 .

. . ] is, at any rate, a question (Vulgate, numquid ), for with Paul is always preceded by a question (Rom 3:4 ; Rom 6:2 ; Gal 3:21 , et al .). “With this, however, either mode of writing, (Lachmann) or (Tischendorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus ; but (Luk 18:8 ; Act 8:30 ), although Paul does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative [100] ), is the livelier and stronger. See Klotz, ad Devar . p. 180; Baeumlein, Partik . p. 39 f. To take for , nonne (Olshausen, Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the subtlety of the passage, the question in which (not in itself, as held by Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness (comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmid . 14, ed. Heind.). Besides, is never really used for , although it sometimes seems so (Herm. ad Viger . p. 823; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet . p. 476; Ellendt, Lex. Soph . I. p. 216). See Khner, ad Xen. Mem . ii. 6. 1. Rckert has mistaken the sense of the whole passage: “If we, although we seek grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, etc., do ye think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, greater pleasure than in the Gentiles, and thus strengthen and further us in our sin?” Against this it may be urged, that Paul has not written ; that the comparison with the Gentiles implied in would be unsuitable, for the sin here reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing; and that Gal 2:18 would not, as is most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for the , but, passing over the and the apodosis, would carry us back to the protasis and prove this latter. The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of Beza and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find expressed here the necessity of the union of sanctification with justification. [101] But the right sense of the passage, as given above, is found in substance, although with several modifications, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of the aorist (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Calovius, Estius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others; also Semler, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Matthias; several of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther, Calovius, Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation , do not assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not correspond with the which follows; while Hilgenfeld unnecessarily supposes a breviloquence: “then I ask , Is then Christ,” etc.?

] “in quo tamen quaerimus justificari,” Bengel.

. .] . emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the : one, through whom sin receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted. [102] The opposite, , 2Co 11:15 .

[98] Hofmann explains it, as if Paul had written (if we, when we became believers, sought, etc.) , . . . (we thereby exhibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). According to Hofmann, the is intended to apply to both members of the sentence, a forced, artificial view for which the context affords neither right nor reason.

[99] So correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr . 1861, p. 73 ff. He, however, improving on Holsten’s similar interpretation, thus explains the whole passage: “If we, being born Jews, have, by our seeking after the salvation in Christ, confessed our sinfulness (and consequently, at the same time, the impotence of the law to make us righteous), does it thence follow that Christ, by inviting also us Jews to seek righteousness in Him and not in the law, has led us astray to a life in Gentile impurity? “But this inference does not stand in logical consistency with the protasis, and could not even suggest itself as a false conclusion; for is assumed to be taken in a different sense from , the latter in the sense of defectus justitiae , the former as vitiositas ethnica . Holsten also understands as the unfettering of sin in the moral life (comp. Gal 5:13 ; Rom 1:6 f., et al .), an idea which is here foreign to the context.

[100] Which is assumed by Wieseler, Buttmann, Hofmann.

[101] They take the essential sense to be: “If the man who is justified in Christ has sinned, Christ is not to blame for this; for (ver. 18) the man himself is to blame for the transgression, because he builds again the dominion of sin which He had destroyed.” So Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly unsuitable, if ver. 15 ff. is still addressed to Peter. It may be urged also against it, that Paul, by using (instead of ), would have written in a way both obscure and misleading; further, that the relapse of the justified man into sin did not at all suggest or presume as probable the conclusion that Christ was to blame for it; moreover, that the expression must assert something of a far stronger and more positive character (namely, sin- producer ); lastly, that ver. 18, taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwithstanding its carefully-chosen expressions, contain nothing more than an almost meaningless and self-evident thought, in which, moreover, the destruction of the dominion of sin, which has been accomplished by Christ or by the justifying grace of God (Rom 8:3 ), would be attributed to man ( ).

[102] Luther’s gloss: “Whoever desires to become pious by means of works, acts just as if Christ by His ministry, office, preaching, and sufferings, made us first of all to be sinners who must become pious through the law; thus is Christ denied, crucified again, slandered, and sin is built up again, which had previously been done away by the preaching of faith.”

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

17 .] Continues the argument. But if, seeking (put first for emphasis in the course of our earnest endeavour) to be justified in Christ (as the element the Body, comprehending us the members. This is lost sight of by rendering ‘ through Christ’), we ourselves also (you and I, addressed to Peter) were found to be sinners (as we should be, if we regarded the keeping of the law as necessary; for we should be just in the situation of those Gentiles who in the Judaistic view are , faith having failed in obtaining righteousness for us, and we having cast aside the law which we were bound to keep) is therefore Christ the minister of sin (i.e. are we to admit the consequence which would in that case be inevitable, that Christ, having failed to obtain for his own the righteousness which is by faith, has left them sinners, and so has done all His work only to minister to a state of sin)?

Whether we read or matters little; either will express the meaning, but the latter more pungently than the former. The clause must be interrogative, as always follows a question in St. Paul; see reff.

Those who would take for (qu. can it ever be so taken, in spite of Matthi (Gr. Gr. 641), Winer (comm. h. l., but not in Gr. Exo 6 , 57. 2, where he allows the translation given above), Monk (on Eur. Alcest. 353), and Porson (pref. to Hec. p. x)?) seem to me to miss altogether the fine irony of the question, which, as it stands, presupposes the question already asked, the inevitable answer given, and now puts the result, ‘Can we believe, are we to hold henceforth, such a consequence?’ The same might be said of all the passages alleged by the above scholars in support of their view. Theodoret expresses well the argument: , , , .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 2:17 . . The last verse arrived at the conclusion that Jewish converts by their own act condemned themselves to be guilty of a broken law. The argument now proceeds on this assumption “ If it be true (as has been shown) that we by seeking to be justified in Christ were found to be ourselves also sinners as well as the Gentiles if our sin was then discovered, and it be admitted that confession of sin lies at the root of all Christian life, what then is the attitude of Christ toward sin?” . . ; This clause is clearly interrogative, and the true reading is , not (inferential). For here, as always elsewhere In Pauline language, repudiates a monstrous suggestion, put forward in the form of a question, the mere statement of which is repugnant to the moral sense.

It was objected to this doctrine of God’s free grace in Christ to guilty sinners that it held out a license to sin by doing away the wholesome restraints of the Law, and so encouraged men to continue in sin by its assurance of pardon. The fallacy is here dismissed with scorn on the strength of the very nature of Christ, but is more fully exposed in the sixth chapter to the Romans.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

by = in. Greek. en. App-104.

minister. Greek. diakonos. App-190.

sin. Greek. hamartia. App-128.

God forbid. See Luk 20:16. Rom 3:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

17.] Continues the argument. But if, seeking (put first for emphasis-in the course of our earnest endeavour) to be justified in Christ (as the element-the Body, comprehending us the members. This is lost sight of by rendering through Christ), we ourselves also (you and I, addressed to Peter) were found to be sinners (as we should be, if we regarded the keeping of the law as necessary; for we should be just in the situation of those Gentiles who in the Judaistic view are , faith having failed in obtaining righteousness for us, and we having cast aside the law which we were bound to keep) is therefore Christ the minister of sin (i.e. are we to admit the consequence which would in that case be inevitable, that Christ, having failed to obtain for his own the righteousness which is by faith, has left them sinners, and so has done all His work only to minister to a state of sin)?

Those who would take for (qu. can it ever be so taken, in spite of Matthi (Gr. Gr. 641), Winer (comm. h. l., but not in Gr. ed. 6, 57. 2, where he allows the translation given above), Monk (on Eur. Alcest. 353), and Porson (pref. to Hec. p. x)?) seem to me to miss altogether the fine irony of the question, which, as it stands, presupposes the question already asked, the inevitable answer given, and now puts the result, Can we believe, are we to hold henceforth, such a consequence? The same might be said of all the passages alleged by the above scholars in support of their view. Theodoret expresses well the argument: , , , .

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 2:17.- , but if) When Peter withdrew himself, and refused to hold any longer that communion in living [food] with the Gentiles, which he had begun; it was the same thing as if he had said, that he had lived a heathen sinner, by the fact of and during the continuance of that communion. But Christ had formed a close relationship with the Gentiles, on account of which he had very properly eaten with them. Wherefore if Peter committed sin in eating with them, the consequence will be that Christ was the minister of that sin. Paul so shrinks back from the impropriety of such a consequence, that he not only subjoins, God forbid, but immediately softens the expression by turning it into an interrogation, and by using also the word , minister, which is well adapted to mark the indignity implied in this passage. There is no blame attached to Christ, conferring righteousness and holiness upon the Gentiles; but the whole blame lies with him, who renews [builds again] a separation from the Gentiles, after they had been converted to Christ; see following verse.-) while we seek, ever since we have received faith and freedom from the law. This word, to seek, is represented [virtually expressed] in the preceding verse; and if while seeking-we are found, is a strong antithesis to it.-, we are found) now, anew.- ) we ourselves also, of our own accord.-, Christ) by [in] whom, however, we seek to be justified.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 2:17

But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ,-The word sought suggests that they who followed after a low of righteousness did not arrive at that law (Rom 9:30-31) and had then turned themselves to Christ for the satisfaction which the law had not afforded them.

we ourselves also were found sinners,-They discovered themselves to be sinners, suggesting the surprise of the Jew who learned for the first time that before God he had no moral superiority over the Gentiles whom he contemptuously called sinners, while he esteemed himself to be righteous (verse 15; Rom 7:10), and now in the light of the life and death of Jesus Christ the Jew discovered himself to be exactly in the same condition (Rom 3:9).

is Christ a minister of sin?-Did Christ make them sinners when through his gospel he revealed to them their sinful condition, and they learned that they all with their legal righteousness were under sin (Rom 3:9), and that by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified?

God forbid.-An expression of strong denial and aversion, rebutting an unjustifiable inference from his teaching.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

we seek

That is, “we” Jews. Rom 3:19-23. The passage might be thus paraphrased: If we Jews, in seeking to be justified by faith in Christ, take our places as mere sinners, like the Gentiles, is it therefore Christ who makes us sinners? By no means. It is by putting ourselves again under law after seeking justification through Christ, that we act as if we were still unjustified sinners, seeking to become righteous through law-works. Gal 5:1-4.

sinners Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

while: Rom 9:30-33, Rom 11:7

are found: Gal 2:11, Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2, 1Jo 3:8-10

is: Mat 1:21, Rom 15:8, 2Co 3:7-9, Heb 7:24-28, Heb 8:2, 1Jo 3:5

God: Rom 3:4, Rom 3:6

Reciprocal: Rom 4:5 – But to Rom 6:15 – shall we 1Co 6:15 – God Gal 3:21 – God forbid

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 2:17. , ; -But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we were found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? God forbid. Of this difficult verse various interpretations have been given.

The verse plainly takes up an assumption, and reduces it to an absurdity. Theodoret says at the conclusion of his remarks on the previous verse, . But if, in accordance with these premises of thine, or assuming the truth of these thy retrogressive principles (Ellicott). The apostle had said, we believed into Christ, , with this end in view-justification; and he now uses , describing the action in unison with it, or which had been prompted by it. It is to be noted, that with the active participle he uses the aorist infinitive, which, though it cannot be expressed in English, gives a momentary character to the action. Jelf, 405, 2. Not as if two justifications are spoken of-one enjoyed already, and another yet sought after (Wieseler, Lipsius). The apostle throws himself back to an earlier period; and indeed some regard as an imperfect. He does not insinuate any doubts as to the reality of his justified state, but only represents the general attitude of an earnest soul-its uniform aspiration toward Christ and justification in Him; as it still feels its sins and shortcomings, still prays for a growing faith and an intenser consciousness of union with Him, and the possession of its blessed fruits. The phrase has its usual meaning, in Christ-in union with Christ, and not by Christ, as in our Authorized Version, which follows Cranmer, Tyndale, and the Genevan. Wycliffe and the Rheims have, however, in Christ. The faith possessed by Peter and Paul, which had gone out of themselves and into Christ, , was the nexus of a living union- . They were justified , for it was the means, or , as it was the instrumental cause; but they were also justified ., as only in such a union has faith any power, or divine grace any saving efficacy. The soul out of union with Christ is faithless, unforgiven, and lifeless. So that the relation indicated by . differs from that indicated by . The phrase by Christ may cover the whole extent of His work as Mediator; but . narrows the meaning to the more special point of union with Him-the inner and only source of life. Wieseler, followed by Schmoller, wrongly takes the phrase to mean, the ground, or Christ as causa meritoria. But the and are used with distinctive significance, as in Eph 1:7. See under it. The two prepositions cannot be so distinguished here, or in such an argument, as if the one pointed to a mere inquirer and the other to a professed member of Christ (Gwynne). In lies a contrast to : if while seeking, or, if after all our seeking, we ourselves also were found to be sinners. The verb has been often regarded as a periphrasis of the subjunctive verb-idem est ac . Kypke, Observat. i. p. 2. Even Gataker makes it a Hebraism- et idem valent. Antonin. Med. p. 329, ed. London 1697. By this dilution of meaning the point and force of the verb are taken away. Not only the Greek verb, but the of the Hebrew idiom also, keeps its proper meaning (2Ch 36:8; Mal 2:6), and denotes not simply the existence of anything, but that existence recognised or discovered. Mat 1:18; Luk 17:18; Rom 7:10. Soph. Trach. 411; Ajax, 1135; Winer, 65, 8. The aorist refers to a point of time past; that is to say, but if, while seeking justification in Christ, we too were found to be, or turned out to be (perhaps with the idea of surprise, Lightfoot), or after all, . It is surely requisite that this word be taken in the sense which it has in Gal 2:15-sinners as the Gentiles were regarded from the Jewish point of view, because not living in subjection to the Jewish law.

The particle which begins the next clause may be accented or . – has in it, according to Donaldson, the idea of distance or progression in an argument, and may involve the idea that the existing state of things is at variance with our previous expectations-so then, or as it seems. Cratylus, pp. 364, 365. In Attic usage it indicates both direct and oblique allusions, the idea of surprise being sometimes implied; or, as Stallbaum defines it, Eam habet vim ut aliquid praeter opinionem accidere, significet; also, doch. Plato, Republ. 375 D; Apolog. 34 E. It does not usually stand first in the sentence among classical writers, nay, sometimes is placed at the end. Herod. 3.64; Xen. Hell. 7.1, 32. Hermann says, in initio poni non potest: Antig. 628. But in the New Testament it stands first. Mat 12:28; 2Co 5:15; Gal 2:21; 2Th 2:15; Klotz-Devarius, 2.160, 1. Some take it here as the conclusive . As Chrysostom says, . More fully his argument is: If faith in Him does not avail for our justification, but if it be necessary to embrace the law again; and if, having forsaken the law for Christ’s sake, we are not justified, but condemned for this abandonment; then shall we find Him for whose sake we abandoned the law the Author of our condemnation. This opinion changes, however, the meaning of into . Theodoret gives the same view, but more distinctly: , , . In this case the apostle is supposed either to take up the objection of a Judaizer thus put: To forsake the law in order to be justified, is to commit sin; and to make this change or commit this sin under the authority of Christ, is to make Christ the minister of sin,-a supposition not to be entertained; therefore it is wrong to plead His sanction for renunciation of law. Or the statement may be the apostle’s own argument: It cannot be a sinful thing to abandon the law, for such abandonment is necessary to justification; and if it were a sinful thing to pass over from the law to faith, it would thus and therefore make Christ the minister of sin: but far from our thoughts be such a conclusion. So generally Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Borger, Schott, and many others.

2. But is supposed by some to put a question; and it needs not with this meaning to be changed into , because it introduces an unauthorized conclusion rebutted by (Hofmann, Wieseler). It is better, however, to take the particle as . True, indeed, in the other places where it occurs, Luk 18:8, Act 8:30, it introduces a question to be followed by a negative answer; but here, from the nature of the case, an affirmative-that is, on the principle admitted-but virtually a negative, which thunders out. On the other hand, it may be said, that in Paul’s epistles occurs only after a question, and denies an inference false in itself but drawn from premises taken for granted, as is pointed out by the indicative . The expresses a perplexity, so natural and striking in the circumstances. It hesitates in putting the question, and has a shade of irony in it. Are we then, pray, to conclude that Christ is the minister of sin? Simplex aliquid sive verae sive fictae dubitationis admiscet. Stallb. Plato, De Repub. 566 A. It does not necessarily stand for , nonne (Olshausen, Schott), which prepares for an affirmative reply. Jelf, 873, 2; Hermann, ad Viger. 823. Unde fit, ut ubi pro dictum videatur orationi saepe color quidam ironiae admisceatur. Khner, Xen. Mem. 2.6, 1, p. 244. The general meaning then is: But if we, seeking to be justified, are found to be sinners; if we, having renounced the law as the ground of justification, have placed ourselves on a level with the heathen who are sinners from our point of view; is it to be inferred, pray-, ergone-that Christ is a minister of sin? Ellicott and Lightfoot find an irony in : We look down upon the Gentiles as sinners, and yet, in order to be justified, we must put ourselves on a level with them. Our possession of the law as born Jews gives us no element of justification; we renounce it, and thus become as Gentile sinners who never had it. Is Christ in that case, in whom alone justification is to be sought without works of law, a minister of sin? The lesson given by Peter’s dissimulation in reverting to legal observance was, that renunciation of legal observance had been wrong. But the renunciation had been made under the authority of Christ; so that you, and they who hold with you, must be prepared to affirm that Christ, necessitating such renunciation, is a minister of sin.

The expositors who attach a different sense to in this verse from what it plainly bears in Gal 2:15, bring out forms of exegesis which do not harmonize with the apostle’s reasoning, or with the special circumstances in which he was placed.

1. A common exegesis among the older interpreters generally, as Paraeus, Wesseling, etc., and recently Twele, Webster and Wilkinson in their New Testament, has been this: If men seeking or professing to seek justification in Christ are yet found living in sin, is Christ to blame for such an abuse of His gospel? Gal 6:1. It is a monstrous inference to teach, that to dispense with works of law in regard to justification is to allow men to continue in sin. But surely this exegesis does not follow out the apostle’s train of thought. It is not the abuse of the doctrine of faith or fides sola at all, but the virtual denial of its sole efficacy, that the apostle is reprehending in this verse.

2. Others, as Calovius, Locke, Zschokke, Haldane, bring out this idea: If while seeking to be justified in Christ, we are yet found sinners or unjustified; if His work alone cannot justify, but must have legal observance added to it; then Christ after all leaves us sinners under condemnation. As Dr. Brown remarks, the inference in such a case would be, not, Christ is the servant of sin, but, Christ’s expiation has been incomplete. This exegesis does not suit the context, nor is it fairly deducible from the words.

3. The same objection may be made to Calvin’s notion: If justification by faith puts Jews and Gentiles on a level, and if Jews, sanctified from the womb, are guilty and polluted, shall we say that Christ makes sin powerful in His own people, and that He is therefore the Author of sin? He who discovers the sin which lay concealed is not therefore the minister of sin. Compare Piscator and Wordsworth. This, however, is not by any means the point in dispute to which the apostle is addressing himself.

4. Nor better is the supposition of Grotius, that the apostle has in his eye the flagitious lives of Judaizers, though he puts it in the first person: The inference that Christ is the minister of sin, will be gathered from our conduct, unless it far excel the life both of Gentiles and Judaizers.

5. The opinion of Macknight needs scarcely be noticed: If we practise the rites of the Mosaic law contrary to our conscience, will Christ promote such iniquity by justifying teachers who delude others in a matter of such importance?

6. Olshausen’s view of the last clause is as objectionable, for it overlooks the special moments of the verse: If justification depends on the law, while Christ ordains the preaching of faith for that purpose, then He is the minister of sin, as He points out a false method of salvation.

7. The form in which Jowett puts the question changes the meaning of : If we too fall back under the law, is Christ the cause of this? Is He the author of that law which is the strength of sin, which reviving we die? etc. This paraphrase introduces a new idea from the Epistle to the Romans; and it is not so much to the inner working of the law, as to its powerlessness to justify, that the apostle is here referring. The point before him suggested by Peter’s inconsistency is rather the bearing of the law on our relation to God than on our character, though both are inseparably connected.

The phrase is a pregnant one (2Co 11:2), the first word being emphatic,-not a furtherer of lawlessness, as Morus, who gives the meaning of lawless, or without law-gesetzlos,-and Rosenmller, who sums it up, Christum esse doctorem paganismi!

The apostle protests against the inference-

-God forbid-let it not be; absit, Vulgate. The phrase is one of the several Septuagint translations of , ad profana, sometimes joined to a pronoun of the first or second person, and sometimes to the name of God. The Seventy render it by or occurs in Mat 16:22; and the Syriac has = propitius sit Deus. The phrase is not confined to the sacred writers, but is found abundantly in Arrian’s Epictetus and in the same sense, but with a change of reference in Herodotus,5.111; Xen. Cyrop. 5.5, 5. It is used only by Paul among the writers of the New Testament: Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6; Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13; Rom 9:14; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11; 1Co 6:15; Gal 3:21; and with a difference in Gal 6:14. It is spoken by the people in Luk 20:16. It is usually and suddenly interjected against an opponent’s inference. God forbid that any one, for any reason or to any extent, from any misconception or on any pretext, should either imagine or suspect Christ to be a minister of sin; or should be involved in any course of conduct, the vindication of which might imply such an inference; or be entangled in any premisses which could lead by any possibility to such an awful conclusion. Perish the thought! Let it be flung from us as an abominable thing!

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Gal 2:17. We ourselves are found sinners. The last word is used in the sense explained at verse 15. By Jumbling the two nations together (as Peter was doing by his inconsistent conduct), it would cause the Jews to be found sinners, and that, too, right while professing to expect justification through Christ. Such a procedure would imply that Christ had become a minister of sin. Paul puts the challenge to Peter in the form of a question, but interposes his own negative answer by the words God forbid, which means “by no means.”

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 2:17. Were found, discovered, in the eyes of God and men, at the time of our conversion to Christ and our justification by faith in him.

Sinners in the Jewish sense, i.e., lawless heathen, as in Gal 2:15.

A minister of sin, helper, promoter.

Let it never be! or Far be it; By no means; Away with the thought; Nay, verily. This phrase occurs fourteen times in St. Paul, thrice in Galatians (Gal 2:17; Gal 2:21; Gal 3:21), ten times in Romans (Rom 3:4; Rom 3:6; Rom 3:31; Rom 6:2; Rom 6:15; Rom 7:7; Rom 7:13; Rom 9:14; Rom 11:1; Rom 11:11), and once in 1Co 6:15. It is an expression of strong denial, often mixed with moral indignation or aversion, and is here and generally used by Paul interjectionally in rebutting an unjustifiable inference deduced from his teaching by an opponent. The rendering God forbid in the E. V. in all these passages is strongly idiomatic, but unfortunate, as it implies a familiar use of Gods name then prevalent in England, which borders on profanity. There is neither God nor forbid in the Greek phrase.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words are generally looked upon as an objection, which the adversaries of the doctrine of justification by faith, have been always ready to make against it, namely, “That if persons be not justified by their obedience to the law, then they may live as they list in the breach and violation of the law, and freely indulge themselves in sin, and consequently make Christ the minister of sin, as if he had relaxed the duty.” The apostle rejects this inference and deduction with the greatest abhorrence and detestation, saying, God forbid.

Hence note, that it is no new prejudice, though a very unjust one, against the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and not by works, that it opens a door to licentiousness, and makes Christ the minister of sin.

Observe farther, a second objection here suggested. Some might pretend that he built up by his practice, what he had destroyed: No says the apostle, I have, together with the doctrine of free justification, preached to you, pressed upon you, the duty of mortification, as of indispensible necessity to be practiced by you; should therefore my preaching or my practice be otherwise than it has been, I should build again what I have destroyed, and destroy what I have already builded; and thus by encouraging sin, and discouraging holiness and obedience, I should be a transgressor against the law of righteousness.

Learn hence, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, cannot be rightly preached, except the duty of mortification of sin be urged and enforced with it; for the same faith that depends upon Christ for pardon of sin, doth look up unto him for power and strength to vanquish and subdue sin; If we do not the latter, Christ will never do the former.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Gal 2:17-19. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ Through the merit of his obedience unto death, by simply believing in him, and in the truths and promises of his gospel; we ourselves are still found sinners Continue in sin; if we are still under the guilt and power of sin, in an unpardoned, unrenewed state; is therefore Christ the minister of sin Does he countenance sin, by giving persons reason to suppose that they are justified through believing in him as the true Messiah, while they continue to live in the commission of sin? God forbid That any thing should ever be insinuated so much to the dishonour of God, and of our glorious Redeemer. For if I build again By my sinful practice; the things which I destroyed Or professed that I wished to destroy, by my preaching, or by my believing; I make myself a transgressor I show that I act very inconsistently, building up again what I pretended I was pulling down. In other words, I show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not on him or his gospel. As if he had said, The objection were just, if the gospel promised justification to men continuing in sin. But it does not. Therefore if any, who profess the gospel, do not live according to it, they are sinners, it is certain, but not justified; and so the gospel is clear. For I through the law Understood in its spirituality, extent, and obligation; applied by the Holy Spirit to my conscience, and convincing me of my utter sinfulness, guilt, and helplessness; am dead to the law To all hope of justification by it, and therefore to all dependance upon it; see notes on Rom 7:7-14; That I may live to God Not that I may continue in sin. For this very end, I am delivered from the condemnation in which I was involved, am justified, and brought into a state of favour and acceptance with God, that I might be animated by nobler views and hopes than the law could give, and engaged, through love to God, his people, and all mankind, to a more generous, sublime, and extensive obedience than the law was capable of producing.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. [But if we were forced by Christ’s light to confess that we were sinners under the law, so that we turned our backs upon the law as a means of justification; and if we were now so disappointed and dissatisfied with the justification which we have obtained from Christ, that we in turn abandon him and seek to return to the law, what will be said of Christ? Will not all be compelled to say that, so far as we are concerned, he has proved himself not a minister to our justification, but rather a minister to our sense of sin? And is he indeed such a minister? God forbid the thought! We may regard Paul’s reproof as closing here and look upon the rest of the chapter as an elaboration of the thought addressed to the Galatians. But his address to them begins properly at Gal 3:1; so we prefer to take it as a continuation of the reproof, wherein Paul drops the plural for the singular that he may declare to Peter his own intentions in the matter.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 17

Is–Christ the Minister of sin? does the gospel promote and encourage sin? The apostle here distresses from his main subject of discussion to answer this objection.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Jamieson Fausset and Brown suggest that Paul is saying, if we, justified by faith in Christ, are found to be sinners – by eating with the Gentiles – then is Christ not the one causing us to sin if we eat with them?

Just an observation before we move on, I have to wonder what kind of relationship Peter and Paul had intellectually. This is Paul’s side of the conversation, and it is such a detailed complicated response – what must Peters comments have been to elicit such a response? Just a thought to ponder.

It seems that Paul saw some feeling in the Jews, that Christ had made things different for them. The Jews and Gentiles were considered as sinners before God and seemingly the Jews may have felt that since they knew about God before the Gentiles did that they should have some special standing before God. Paul seemed to sense that there was a feeling that Christ dying for the Gentiles to was somehow causing them trouble with the Gentiles.

Paul says Christ did not cause this sin.

My own view of this verse is this. If you are seeking to be saved by faith in Christ and look to the law also – which is going to tell you that you are a sinner – then does Christ become the purveyor of sin – definitely not – it is the law that is the problem not Christ.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

2:17 {4} But if, while {s} we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

(4) Before he goes any further, he meets with the objection which abhorred this doctrine of free justification by faith, because, they say, men are by this means withdrawn from the performing of good works. And in this sort is the objection: if sinners should be justified through Christ by faith without the Law, Christ would approve sinners, and should as it were exhort them to sin by his ministry. Paul answers that this conclusion is false, because Christ destroys sin in the believers: for so, he says, do men flee to Christ through the terror and fear of the Law, that being acquitted from the curse of the Law and justified they may be saved by him. And in addition he together begins in them by little and little that strength and power of his which destroys sin: to the end that this old man being abolished by the power of Christ crucified, Christ may live in them, and they may consecrate themselves to God. Therefore if any man give himself to sin after he has received the Gospel, let him not accuse Christ nor the Gospel, but himself, for he destroys the work of God in himself.

(s) He goes from justification to sanctification, which is another benefit we receive from Christ, if we lay hold of him by faith.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul refuted the charge of the Judaizers that justification by faith led to lawless behavior. He said this made Christ, in effect, a promoter of sin. This could never be. If a Christian puts himself or herself back under the Law, the Law will show him or her to be a sinner since no one can keep the Law perfectly. These verses are a strong testimony that Christians are free from the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

What did Paul mean when he said "while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners" (Gal 2:17)?

"Here he [Paul] may simply mean that when law-abiding Jews like Peter and himself cease to look to the law as the basis of their justification before God and find that justification in Christ instead, they put themselves effectively on a level with ’sinners of the gentiles’: they have, in that sense, ’been found sinners’-they themselves (kai autoi) as much as lesser breeds without the law. But this applies to all Jewish Christians, even to those who have not appreciated the law-free character of the gospel: by yielding faith to Christ they have in logic, if not in consciousness, abandoned faith in the law, and have had to take their place as sinners, utterly in need of God’s justifying grace." [Note: Bruce, pp. 140-41.]

". . . Paul is arguing that although it is true that in order to be justified in Christ it is necessary to abandon faith in the law as a means of salvation (premise 1) and hence to become sinners in the sense of being reduced to the level of the ’Gentiles and sinners’ of Gal 2:15 (premise 2), the conclusion does not follow that Christ thereby becomes an agent of sin (in the sense of a promoter of actual wrongdoing), support for this statement being given in Gal 2:18-20." [Note: Fung, pp. 119-20.]

The "For" at the beginning of Gal 2:18 is probably coordinate with the "For" at the beginning of Gal 2:19. Both verses give reasons "it must never be" (Gal 2:17). Gal 2:18 gives the hypothetical negative proof: actual transgression inevitably follows when the law becomes the authority in the believer’s life. Gal 2:19 gives the actual positive proof.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles