Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:18
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
18. The edifice which St Paul had pulled down was not, as some suppose, the Levitical law of meats, or the Mosaic ceremonial law, in themselves considered. It was not, as a rule of life, but as a ground of justification, that he utterly repudiated and swept them away.
I make myself ] Rather, I prove, I conclude myself to be; nearly = I convict myself.
a transgressor ] nearly equivalent to ‘sinner’ above, which had primary reference to the Gentiles. Sin is the transgression or violation of the law. If I am now trying to build up again the system of justification by legal obedience, I by that very attempt convict myself of having been a transgressor, when instead of obeying the law, I sought to destroy its obligation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For if I build again the things which I destroyed – Paul here uses the first person; but he evidently intends it as a general proposition, and means that if anyone does it he becomes a transgressor. The sense is, that if a man, having removed or destroyed that which was evil, again introduces it or establishes it, he does wrong, and is a transgressor of the Law of God. The particular application here, as it seems to me, is to the subject of circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic law. They had been virtually abolished by the coming of the Redeemer, and by the doctrine of justification by faith. It had been seen that there was no necessity for their observance, and of that Peter and the others had been fully aware. Yet they were lending their influence again to establish them or to build them up again. They complied with them, and they insisted on the necessity of their observance. Their conduct, therefore, was that of building up again that which had once been destroyed, destroyed by the ministry, and toils, and death of the Lord Jesus, and by the fair influence of his gospel. To rebuild that again; to re-establish those customs, was wrong, and now involved the guilt of a transgression of the Law of God. Doddridge supposes that this is an address to the Galatians, and that the address to Peter closed at the previous verse. But it is impossible to determine this; and it seems to me more probable that this is all a part of the address to Peter; or rather perhaps to the assembly when Peter was present; see the note at Gal 2:15.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 2:18
For if I build again the things which I destroyed.
I. Teachers are great offenders when good doctrine is joined to bad conversation. Good doctrine destroys the kingdom of darkness, bad doctrine builds it up again.
II. Rulers are transgressors when good counsel which beats down wickedness goes with bad example, which sets it up again.
III. Professors are great sinners when reformed religion and unreformed life are connected, for unreformed life builds again that which Christ hath destroyed. (W. Perkins.)
The sinfulness of Judaistic practices
In repairing to Christ, Peter had virtually pulled down the fabric of the law as the ground of justification (formally did so, under Divine direction, in the house of Cornelius); but in now returning to its observance as a matter of principle, he was again building it up, and in this he proved himself to be a transgressor: but how?
I. Such vacillation, playing fast and loose with the things of God, was a serious moral obliquity.
II. In the retrogression complained of there was involved a departure from the very aim of the law, which was to lead men to Christ. Peter, therefore–
III. Defeated the intention of the law, and acted toward it the part of a transgressor. (Fairbairn)
.
Value of consistency
In one of the older States resided an infidel, the owner of a saw-mill, situated by the side of a highway, over which a large portion of a Christian congregation passed every Sabbath to anti from the church. This infidel, having no regard for the Sabbath, was as busy, and his mill was as noisy, on that holy day as any other. Before long it was observed, however, that a certain time before service the mill would stop, remain silent, and appear to be deserted for a few minutes; when its noise and clatter would recommence and continue till about the close of the service, when for a short time it again ceased. It was soon noticed that one of the deacons of the church passed the mill to the place of worship during the silent interval; and so punctual was he to the hour, that the infidel knew just when to stop the mill, so that it should be silent while the deacon was passing, although he paid no regard to the passing of the others. On being asked why he paid this mark of respect to the deacon, he replied, The deacon professes just what the rest of you do; but he lives, also, such a life, that it makes me feel bad here (putting his hand upon his heart) to run my mill while he is passing. (Elon Foster.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
By the things which he destroyed, some understand the state of sin; and from hence conclude the mutability of a state of justification: but there is no need of that, it may as well be understood of a constant course and voluntary acts of sin. If I teach a doctrine that shall encourage a sinful life, or if I should live in a course of sin, these are the things which I, as a minister of Christ, have in my preaching and doctrine destroyed, teaching you, that not only the guilt of your sins was removed upon your justification by Christ, but the dominion of sin also destroyed: and they are things which justification destroyeth; God never saying to any soul: Thy sins are forgiven thee, without adding, sin no more. So as, if a justified state would admit of a going on in a settled course of sin, it would build what it destroyed.
I make myself a transgressor; now should I, or any one, do any such thing, we should thereby make ourselves great transgressors. So as the apostles argument here seemeth to be the same with that, Rom 6:2; How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? He strives at the same thing here, viz. to prove that the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, could not give a liberty to any to sin, because it shows persons made partakers of that grace, that they are freed, not only from the guilt, but also from the power and dominion of sin, so as that none can from it receive any comfort as to the former, nor find the latter wrought in them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
18. Greek, “For ifthe things which I overthrew (by the faith of Christ), those verythings I build up again (namely, legal righteousness, by subjectingmyself to the law), I prove myself (literally, ‘I commend myself’) atransgressor.” Instead of commending yourself as you sought todo (Ga 2:12, end), you merelycommend yourself as a transgressor. The “I” is intended byPaul for Peter to take to himself, as it is his case,not Paul’s own, that is described. A “transgressor” isanother word for “sinner” (in Ga2:17), for “sin is the transgression of the law.”You, Peter, by now asserting the law to be obligatory, are provingyourself a “sinner,” or “transgressor,” in yourhaving set it aside by living as the Gentiles, and with them. Thusyou are debarred by transgression from justification by the law, andyou debar yourself from justification by Christ, since in your theoryHe becomes a minister of sin.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
A transgressor (). Peter, by his shifts had contradicted himself helplessly as Paul shows by this condition. When he lived like a Gentile, he tore down the ceremonial law. When he lived like a Jew, he tore down salvation by grace.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “For if I build again,” (ei gar palin oikodomo) For if I should build up, enlarge, embellish, or enhance again”; or return to support the law of Moses, Phariseeism.
2) “The things which I destroyed,” (ha katelusa-tauta) “The (kind of) things which I once destroyed or tore down,” put aside, put behind me religiously to accept and follow Jesus Christ, Php_3:3-8; Php_3:13-14. This especially concerns ceremonial rites of the law.
3) “I make myself a transgressor,” (parabaten emauton sunistano) “I constitute myself (as) a transgressor,” to appear by such conduct. His transgression in turning back to the Law would make him a transgressor against Jesus Christ. For it is a moral, ethical, and religious principle that no one can serve two masters, Mat 6:24; Luk 16:13. One can not be a servant of Moses (the Law of Moses), and of Jesus Christ in and through service in His church at the same time, Eph 3:21. As one can not have two saviors, one can not serve masters, two laws (forms of law), service, or ceremonies; See? Mar 8:34; Mar 13:34-37. To attempt to do so is hypocrisy.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. For if I build again. The reply consists of two parts. This is the first part, and informs us that the supposition now made is at variance with his whole doctrine, since he had preached the faith of Christ in such a manner as to connect with it the ruin and destruction of sin. For, as we are taught by John, that Christ came not to build up the kingdom of sin, but “that he might destroy the works of the devil,” (1Jo 3:8,) so Paul declares, that, in preaching the gospel, he had restoreth true righteousness, in order that sin might be destroyed. It was, therefore, in the highest degree improbable, that the same person who destroyed sin should renew its power; and, by stating the absurdity, he repels the calumny.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(18) But Christ is not a minister of sin. The thought is not to be tolerated. For, on the contrary, the sin is seen, not in leaving the Law for Christ, but in going back from Christ to the Law. The sin is seen doubly: for on one theorythe theory that the Law is validit was wrong to give it up; while on the other theory, that Christianity has taken its place, it is still more wrong to restore the fabric that has once been broken down.
For.The connection is with the words immediately preceding: God forbid that Christ should be the minister of sin. The idea is absurd as well as profane. For, instead of the Pauline Christian (who follows Christianity to its logical results) being the sinner, it is really the Judaising Christian who stands self-condemnedi.e., in returning to what he has forsaken.
If I build again.The first person is used out of delicate consideration for his opponents. The Apostle is going to put a supposed case, which really represents what they were doing; but in order to soften the directness of the reference he takes it, as it were, upon himself.
St. Paul is fond of metaphors taken from building. Comp. Rom. 15:20 (building upon another mans foundation), 1Co. 3:10-14 (Christ the foundation), Eph. 2:20-22 (the Church built on the foundation of Apostles and prophets), and the words edify and edification wherever they occur. The idea of pulling down or destroying is also frequently met with. So in Rom. 14:20 (for meat destroy not the work of God, the same word as here used, in opposition to edify, immediately before); 2Co. 5:1 (if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolvedpulled down or destroyed); 2Co. 10:4 (mighty to the pulling down of strongholds)a different word in the Greek, but similar in meaning.
We may compare with the whole verse the well-known saying, Burn what you have adored, and adore what you have burned.
The things which I destroyedi.e., the Mosaic law, the binding obligation of which had been done away in Christ.
Make myself.Show, or prove myself to be: the same word as that translated commend in Rom. 3:5; Rom. 5:8.
A transgressor.Hitherto the Apostle had kept up a sort of studied ambiguity in his use of the words sin, sinner. The Jews called the Gentiles sinners, simply from the fact of their being Gentiles. The Pauline Christian placed himself on the same footing with the Gentiles, so far as the Law was concerned, and therefore he, too, in the same phraseology, was a sinner. But now the Apostle uses a word that could not be mistaken. A sinner the Christian might be, in the Judaising sense of the word, but the Judaiser himself was the real sinner: it was he who offended against the immutable principles of right and wrong.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
18. And our law-keeping does place Christ in this condition; for if I build again the law-justification, which I destroyed, by rejecting it for Christ, I make myself unjustified a transgressor.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gal 2:18. I make myself a transgressor. Many commentators consider this verse as a continuation of St. Paul’s speech at Antioch, and would render and connect it thus: “On the contrary, so far are we from being made sinners by neglecting justification by the law, that if we taught the necessity of its works, we should become transgressors, in building again the things which we destroyed.” But if this interpretation was to be admitted, we should not only find it hard to clear up the argument, but must suppose that the following verses likewise are part of the speech to St. Peter, which would make them much less pertinent and natural, than if we suppose them the overflowings of St. Paul’s devout heart in addressing the Galatians. His speech to St. Peter rather seems to have gone no further than the foregoing verse; and the conjunction is often used with such a latitude, that we might take it in the beginning of this verse to signify now, and so consider St. Paul as shewing here, that, whatever some insinuated to his prejudice, there was no inconsistency in his doctrine and practice with what he had then so openly declared.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 2:18 . Ground assigned for the : No! Christ is not a minister of sin; for and such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct censured in thee if I again build up that which I have pulled down, I show myself as transgressor ; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to the state of the case supposed in Gal 2:17 , as the promoter of sin, but the reproach and that a reproach of transgression falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit myself by my own action.
Remark the emphasis energetically exposing the great personal guilt which is laid first on (in contrast to ), then on (in contrast to ), and jointly on the juxtaposition of the two words.
In the building up of that which had been pulled down Paul depicts the behaviour of Peter, in so far as the latter previously, and even still in Antioch (Gal 2:12 ), had pronounced the Mosaic law not to be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian who has his righteousness in Christ and not in the law, and had thus pulled it down as a building thenceforth useless, but subsequently by his Judaizing behaviour again represented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as it were, built up anew the house which had been pulled down. [103] Paul is fond of the figure of building and pulling down. See Rom 15:20 ; 1Co 8:1 ; 1Co 10:23 ; Eph 2:20 f.; Rom 14:20 ; 2Co 5:1 , et al . Comp. Talmud, Berach . 63. 1, in Wetstein: “jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem fecisti, an perrumpes?”
The first person veils that, which had happened with Peter in concreto , under the milder form of a general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one) is individualized by I (comp. Rom 7:7 ).
] with emphasis: this , not anything else or more complete in its place.
] not sinner generally, as Wieseler, according to his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it (see on Gal 2:17 ), but transgressor of the law (Rom 4:15 ; Rom 2:25 ); so that, in conformity with the significance of the figure used, is obviously supplied from the context (Gal 2:16 ; Gal 2:19 ), and that as the Mosaic law, not as the , the gospel (Koppe, Matthies). But how far does he, who reasserts the validity of that law which he had previously as respects justification declared invalid, present himself as a transgressor of the same? Not in so far as he proves that he had wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it (Ambrosius, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vorstius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosenmller, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald), or as he has in the pulling down sinned against that which is to him right , as Hofmann interprets it, [104] but, as Gal 2:19 shows, because the law itself has brought about the freedom of the Christian from the law, in order that he may live to God; consequently he that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and thus stands forth as transgressor , namely, of the law in its real sense, which cannot desire, but on the contrary rejects, the re-exchanging of the new righteousness for the old. Comp. Rom 3:31 . See the fuller statement at Gal 2:19 . Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact ( ). Bengel, moreover, well says: “Vocabulum horribile, legis studiosioribus.” The word is purposely chosen , and stands in a climactic relation to (Gal 2:17 ), the category which includes also the Gentiles without law.
] I show . See Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom . iii. 5; Munthe, Obss . p. 358; Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as commendo, laudo (2Co 3:1 ; 2Co 5:12 ; 2Co 10:12 ), making it convey an ironical reference to the Judaists , who had boasted of their Judaizing behaviour. This idea is not in any way indicated; [105] and the ironical reference must have rather pointed at Peter , who, however, had not made a boast of his Judaizing, but had consented to it in a timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation is more subtle: “Petrus voluit commendare se Gal 2:12 fin.; ejus commendationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit.” But according to the connection, as exhibited above, between Gal 2:18 and Gal 2:17 , the idea of commendation is so entirely foreign to the passage, that, in fact, expresses essentially nothing more than the idea of in Gal 2:17 ; bringing into prominence, however, the self -presentation, the self -proof, which the person concerned practically furnishes in his own case: he establishes himself as a transgressor.
[103] Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 283.
[104] The application to be made of the general proposition is said to be this: “Whosoever desires and seeks to become righteous in Christ would not do so, unless he recognised the matter in which he sinned as a breach of the law , which he has again to make good , and that which he does to make it good is self-confession as a transgressor .” This forced perversion should have been precluded by the very consideration that in reference to the law cannot be understood in the sense of breaking it, like , Joh 5:18 (comp. Joh 7:26 ), but only in the sense of Mat 5:17 , according to which, of course, the building up again is no making good again . Comp. on , Polyb. iii. 8. 2.
[105] Schott should not have appealed to the form . Both forms have the same signification. Hesychius: , , , , . Only the form is less frequent and later, Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2Co 3:1 ; 2Co 5:12 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
18 .] For (substantiates the , and otherwise deduces the ) if the things which I pulled down, those very things (and no others) I again build up (which thou art doing, who in Csarea didst so plainly announce freedom from the law, and again here in Antioch didst practise it thyself. The first person is chosen clementi causa ; the second would have placed Peter, where the first means that he should place himself ), I am proving (reff.) myself a transgressor ( is the species, bringing me under the genus . So that . . . is the explanation of ). The force of the verse is, ‘You, by now reasserting the obligation of the law, are proving ( quoad te ) that your former step of setting aside the law was in fact a transgression of it:’ viz. in that you neglected and set it aside, not, as Chrys., Thl., and Meyer (from Gal 2:19 ), because the law itself was leading you on to faith in Christ: for (1) that point is not yet raised, not belonging to this portion of the argument, and (2) by the hypothesis of this verse the has given up the faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded as acknowledging it as the end of the law. See against this view, but to me not convincingly, Ellicott, Exo 2 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:18 . “If, indeed, I do reestablish the authority of the Law over Christian life, it becomes true that Christ did lead me to transgression.” So argues the Apostle as he turns to his own life for an illustration of the incompatibility of allegiance to Christ with the continued supremacy of the Law.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
make = prove.
transgressor. Greek. parabates. App-128. There is an ellipsis here. Read “to have been a transgressor”, i.e. in destroying.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18.] For (substantiates the , and otherwise deduces the ) if the things which I pulled down, those very things (and no others) I again build up (which thou art doing, who in Csarea didst so plainly announce freedom from the law, and again here in Antioch didst practise it thyself. The first person is chosen clementi causa; the second would have placed Peter, where the first means that he should place himself), I am proving (reff.) myself a transgressor ( is the species, bringing me under the genus . So that . . . is the explanation of ). The force of the verse is,-You, by now reasserting the obligation of the law, are proving (quoad te) that your former step of setting aside the law was in fact a transgression of it: viz. in that you neglected and set it aside,-not, as Chrys., Thl., and Meyer (from Gal 2:19), because the law itself was leading you on to faith in Christ: for (1) that point is not yet raised, not belonging to this portion of the argument, and (2) by the hypothesis of this verse the has given up the faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded as acknowledging it as the end of the law. See against this view, but to me not convincingly, Ellicott, ed. 2.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:18. , I destroyed) By the faith of Christ.- , I build again) by subjection to the law.-) a prevaricator,[15] a transgressor of the law, while I seem to observe it, [retracting, as it were, my former change (abandonment) of Judaism.-V. g.] The word () was dreadful in the eyes of those who were more zealous for the law. [This was, to wit, to transgress the law of faith.-V. g.]-, I commend) Peter had wished to commend himself, Gal 2:12, at the end; Paul shows by this mimesis,[16] the sad fruit of that commendation.
[15] Prvaricator, a shuffler, one guilty of collusion, a sham-defender, as Peter here seeming to be a maintainer of the law, though being a transgressor against it.-ED.
[16] Imitation of the word characterising Peters aim, viz. to commend himself.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:18
Gal 2:18
For if I build up again those things which I destroyed,-He had preached Christ as to the end of the law. It was their tutor to bring them to Christ that they might be justified through faith in Christ, but when faith came they were no longer under law. (Gal 3:24-25). Then if he by observing the law built up what he had pulled down, he made himself a transgressor. He and all who had preached Christ had preached that the law was fulfilled, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross. For him to observe the law and teach others to observe it was to nullify the death of Jesus and to take away the results of his death.
I prove myself a transgressor.-[If Peter did right in refusing to eat with the Gentiles, he had done wrong in associating with them earlier; if he had done right to obey the vision from heaven, he was a transgressor in disobeying it now.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
transgressor
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Gal 2:4, Gal 2:5, Gal 2:12-16, Gal 2:21, Gal 4:9-12, Gal 5:11, Rom 14:15, 1Co 8:11, 1Co 8:12
Reciprocal: Rom 6:15 – shall we
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:18. , -for if the things which I destroyed, these again I build up, I constitute myself a transgressor. The of the Received Text rests only on the slender authority of D3, K, L.
This verse has a close connection with the preceding one. The , in spite of Wieseler’s objection, is a confirmation of the , as in Rom 9:14; Rom 11:1. Why say I so sharply? the reason is, For if I set up again what I have pulled down, my rebuilding is a confession that the work of demolition was wrong. And if I claim the authority of Christ for both parts of the process, then I make possible an affirmative to the startling question, Is He after all a minister of sin? Nay, if I re-enact legal observances as indispensable to justification, after having maintained that justification is not of legal merit but of grace, my second work proves my sin in my first work. Or: Is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid; for in the renunciation of the law, and in the consequent finding of ourselves sinners in order to justification, there is no sin; but the sin lies in returning to the law again as the means or ground of acceptance, for such a return is an assertion of its perpetual authority. There is yet another and secondary contrast,-not so primary a contrast as Olshausen, Winer, Schott, and Wieseler would contend for, since coming after has not the emphatic position: You, from your point of view toward us who have forsaken the law and only believe in Christ to justification, find us sinners-, and would implicate Christ; but in rebuilding what I destroyed, it is not Christ who is to blame, but myself I show to be a transgressor. Or: You Judaists regard as all non-observers of the law, yet this non-observance is sanctioned by Christ; but would you dare to impeach Him as the promoter of anything that may really be called ? No, far from us be the thought! But a direct must be charged on him who, like Peter, sets up in Galatia what at Caesarea and at Antioch he had cast down so firmly, and that as the result of a supernatural vision and lesson. The structure of the verse, which prevents it from being well rendered into English, is emphatic: . . . . The change to the first person was probably clementiae caus-mitigandi vituperii caus (Jaspis),-for it might well have been-. The figure is a common one with the apostle, as in Rom 15:20; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 10:23; Eph 2:20. The tropical use of , to loosen down, is common in the New Testament, as applied to , Mat 5:17, and , Act 5:38-39, Rom 14:20. The apostle utters a general principle, though the intended application is to the Mosaic law. There is a distinct emphasis on : these, and nothing else than these,-a rebuilding of the identical materials I had cast down. The verb in the present tense is suggested by the general form of a maxim which the verse assumes, while it also glances at Peter’s actual conduct. The rarer form , not different in meaning from the other form , signifies I prove, or am proving, not commendo (Schott). Hesychius defines it by , , , . The true meaning comes-e componendi significatione: Rom 3:5; Rom 5:8; 2Co 6:4; Sept. Susan. 61; Jos. Antiq. 2.7, 1; and as here with a double accusative it occurs in Philo, , Quis rer. div. Haer. p. 114, vol. iv. ed. Pfeiffer; and in Diodor. Sic. 13.91, , vol. i. pt. 2, p. 779, ed. Dindorf, Lipsiae 1828. Bengel’s notion of a mimsis, and Schott’s of irony, in the selection or use of the verb, are far-fetched and groundless. is a transgressor, to wit, of the law,-a more specific form than , for it seems to imply violation of direct law: Rom 2:25; Rom 2:27; Rom 4:15; Jam 2:9; Jam 2:11.
But what law is referred to? It cannot be the law of faith or of the gospel (Koppe, Matthies); but it is the Mosaic law itself. For Peter was guilty of notorious inconsistency in preaching the abrogation of legal observance, and then in reenacting it in his conduct; and specially, that conduct was a confession that he had transgressed in overthrowing the law. So Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, De Wette, and Ewald. Alford takes the phrase as the explanation of -found sinners, that is, in setting aside the law. Various modifications of this view have been given. Pelagius places the specially in this, that Peter was confessing himself meae sententiae praevaricator; Morus, in that by his inconsistency he was showing himself to be one, qui non observat officium doctoris. Hammond takes the noun to signify an apostate. Wieseler understands the verse in a general sense as enforcing the connection of justification and sanctification,-sin being an actual rebuilding of what in justification had been thrown down; an opinion which Schmoller is justified in calling ein starkes Exempel dogmatisirender Exegese. Hofmann, too, gives a peculiar view: The sinner, to be justified, must acknowledge himself guilty of a violation of law; and such a confession shows himself and not Christ the servant of sin-his very attempt to obtain righteousness in Christ is an acknowledgment of transgression. But these opinions are aside from the context. Bagge’s view is too vague: If a justified man seek justification by law, he again binds himself to the law, and thus declares himself a transgressor. So is that of Rollock: Ego sum transgressor quoniam reaedifico peccatum, quod per fidem in Christum, quoad reatum et maculam destruere desideravi. Similarly Webster and Wilkinson. The apostle’s general argument is, there was no sin in declaring against the validity of legal observance in order to faith in Christ, who is the end of the law; this emancipation was only obedience to Christ, and He cannot be the minister of sin. Men, Jews especially, renouncing the law as a ground of justification, will find themselves sinners from their previous point of view, and Christ is not to be blamed. But this renunciation of law must be sin to all who, now regarding themselves as having been in a false position, not only recoil from it, but go back to the old Judaic ordinances, and seek acceptance through subjection to them. Abrogation and re-enactment cannot both be right.
But there lies a deeper reason which the apostle now proceeds to develop. This deeper reason it might be difficult to trace in this verse by itself, but the of the next verse brings it out. It is also recognised by the Greek expositors; and it is this, that the law itself was leading on to faith in Christ. From its very form and aspects it taught its own typical and temporary character,-that it was an intermediate system, preparing for Christ and showing the way to Him; and in serving such a purpose it indicated its own supersession. But if, after Christ has come, you re-enact it, you not only confess that you were wrong in holding it to be abrogated, but you also prove yourself a transgressor of its inner principles and a contravener of its spirit and purpose; for the next words are, . Chrysostom gave as the meaning: The law has taught me not to obey itself; and therefore if I do so, I shall be transgressing even its teaching. Theophylact explains, .
The objection of Alford to this view is, as Ellicott remarks, of no real force. The Dean says, The of the illustration has given up faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded as acknowledging it as the end of the law. The Bishop truly replies, that the had not given up faith in Christ, but had only added to it. Peter certainly had not renounced faith in Christ, but he had given occasion for others to suppose that he regarded legal observance to be either the essential complement of faith or an indispensable supplement to it. His view of the relation of the law to faith may not even have been obscured, for his inconsistency was dissimulation. How the law was transgressed, if re-enacted either to compete with faith or give it validity, the apostle proceeds to show:
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 2:18. Such inconsistent conduct would be like overthrowing a building because it “had served its purpose,” then immediately trying to rebuild it with the ruins of the “wrecked” structure. Paul closes this chastisement of the apostle Peter with the severe charge that his inconsistency made him a transgressor.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:18. The sin is the other way, in going back from Christ to Moses, from the gospel of freedom to the law of bondage. Paul speaks with delicate consideration in the first person, but really means Peter and the Judaizers. He supposes a case which actually occurred, and exposes its folly. Peter in this case proved himself an architect of ruin.
The things which I pulled down, the Mosaic ordinances, in this case the Levitical law of meats. Paul frequently uses the metaphor of building; comp. 1Co 3:10-14; 2Co 5:1; 2Co 10:4; Rom 15:20; Eph 2:20-22.
I prove myself to be a transgressor of the law itself, by rebuilding it on the ruins of the gospel contrary to its own spirit and intent to prepare the way for the gospel as its fulfillment.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 18
If I build again, &c.; if I return again to the sins which I had abandoned. The argument would seem to be that, although the Christian depends on faith in Christ, and not on legal observances, for salvation, yet he fully renounces all sin when he unites himself to Christ, and the guilt and the responsibility are altogether his own, if he return to sin again.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Verse eighteen (18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.) follows to say if I lay on the law I lay on the sin as well and make myself again a sinner, when in reality Christ has made us free and Christ is all we need to remain so – if we in fact take on the law then we take on sin once again. No, I am not speaking of security at all. He is explaining the relation of the law to Christ.
Verse nineteen adds to this! 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I’m dead to the law and it can no longer make me a sinner, because I cannot obey all of it.