Galatians 2:18

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:18 I am a sinner (or lawbreaker): Turning away from faith and back to the law brings a person under the jurisdiction of the law, where all stand under God’s judgment (Rom 3:10-12, 23-24; see Heb 6:1-8), and is itself a serious sin against Christ (Gal 5:2-4; cp. Heb 6:4-6). See also study note on 2:19. • if I rebuild: By insisting on keeping Jewish laws concerning food and circumcision (Gal 2:11-13). • Christ tore down the system of law through his death (Eph 2:14-16).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 2:18. Κατέλυσα, I destroyed) By the faith of Christ.—πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, I build again) by subjection to the law.—παραβάτην) 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 (παραβάτης) 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.]—συνίστημι, 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] Prævaricator, 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 Peter’s aim, viz. to commend himself.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_2:18. Ground assigned for the μὴ γένοιτο: No! Christ is not a minister of sin; forand such is the result, Peter, of the course of conduct censured in theeif 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 reproachand that a reproach of transgressionfalls upon myself alone, as I exhibit myself by my own action.

Remark the emphasisenergetically exposing the great personal guiltwhich is laid first on παραβάτην (in contrast to ἁμαρτίας διάκονος), then on ἐμαυτόν (in contrast to Χριστός), 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).

ταῦτα] with emphasis: this, not anything else or more complete in its place.

παραβάτην] 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, νόμου is obviously supplied from the context (Gal_2:16; Gal_2:19),and that as the Mosaic law, not as the νόμος τῆς πίστεως, 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, Rosenmüller, 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 (αὐτὸς γὰρ … ὁ νόμος … με ὡδήγησε πρὸς τὴν πίστιν καὶ ἔπεισεν ἀφεῖναι αὐτόν). Bengel, moreover, well says: Vocabulum horribile, legis studiosioribus. The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic relation to ἁμαρτωλοί (Gal_2:17),the category which includes also the Gentiles without law.

ΣΥΝΙΣΤΆΝΩ] 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 Bengels 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, ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω expresses essentially nothing more than the idea of εὑρέθημεν 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 καταλύειν in reference to the law cannot be understood in the sense of breaking it, like λύειν τὸ σάββατον, 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 καταλύειν τοὺς νόμους, Polyb. iii. 8. 2.

[105] Schott should not have appealed to the form συνιστάνω. Both forms have the same signification. Hesychius: συνιστάνειν, ἐπαινεῖν, φανεροῦν, βεβαιοῦν, παρατιθέναι. Only the form συνιστάνω is less frequent and later, Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2Co_3:1; 2Co_5:12.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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,” (1 John 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 theory—the theory that the Law is valid—it 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-condemned—i.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 man’s 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 dissolved”—pulled 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 destroyed—i.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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 apostle’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For if I build again the things which I destroyed (eij galusa tauta palin oijkodomw); for if I am building up again the things which I pulled down. I make myself a transgressor (parabathn ejmautosthmi or, sunistanw another form of the same verb); a transgressor is what I am showing my own self to be. I must be wrong one way or the other; if I am right now, was wrong then; and from the very nature of the case now in hand, wrong exceedingly; no less than an absolute transgressor. This word "transgressor" denotes, not one who merely happens to break, perchance inadverdently, some precept of the Law, but one who, perhaps in consequence of even one act of wilful transgression, is to be regarded as trampling upon the authority of the Law altogether. (comp. Rom_2:25, Rom_2:27; Jam_2:9, Jam_2:11, which are the only places of the New Testament in which the word occurs; it is therefore a full equivalent to the word "sinner" of ver. 17) The Greek verb sunistanw, "to put forward in a clear light," is used similarly in 2Co_6:4 2Co_7:11. It is much debated, and is certainly nowise clear, how far down in the chapter the rebuke addressed to St. Peter extends. If it does not reach to the end of the chapter, as some think it does, the break may be very well placed at the end of this verse. For this verse clearly relates to St. Peter, whether actually addressed to him or not; notwithstanding that the verbs are in the hypothetical first person singular, they cannot be taken as referred to St. Paul, not being at all applicable to his case. On the other hand, with the nineteenth verse the first person is plainly used by St. Paul with reference to his own self, which is indeed marked by the emphatic ejgw with which it opens.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

By no means. For if I build again - By my sinful practice. The things which I destroyed - By my preaching, I only make myself - Or show myself, not Christ, to be a transgressor; the whole blame lies on me, not 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.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

"I have not preached to the end that I build again the things which I destroyed. If I should do so, I would not only be laboring in vain, but I would make myself guilty of a great wrong. By the ministry of the Gospel I have destroyed sin, heaviness of heart, wrath, and death. I have abolished the Law, so that it should not bother your conscience any more. Should I now once again establish the Law, and set up the rule of Moses? This is exactly what I should be doing, if I would urge circumcision and the performance of the Law as necessary unto salvation. Instead of righteousness and life, I would restore sin and death."

By the grace of God we know that we are justified through faith in Christ alone. We do not mingle law and grace, faith and works. We keep them far apart. Let every true Christian mark the distinction between law and grace, and mark it well.

We must not drag good works into the article of justification as the monks do who maintain that not only good works, but also the punishment which evildoers suffer for their wicked deeds, deserve everlasting life. When a criminal is brought to the place of execution, the monks try to comfort him in this manner: "You want to die willingly and patiently, and then you will merit remission of your sins and eternal life." What cruelty is this, that a wretched thief, murderer, robber should be so miserably misguided in his extreme distress, that at the very point of death he should be denied the sweet promises of Christ, and directed to hope for pardon of his sins in the willingness and patience with which he is about to suffer death for his crimes? The monks are showing him the paved way to hell.

These hypocrites do not know the first thing about grace, the Gospel, or Christ. They retain the appearance and the name of the Gospel and of Christ for a decoy only. In their confessional writings faith or the merit of Christ are never mentioned. In their writings they play up the merits of man, as can readily be seen from the following form of absolution used among the monks.

"God forgive thee, brother. The merit of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the blessed Saint Mary, always a virgin, and of all the saints; the merit of thy order, the strictness of thy religion, the humility of thy profession, the contrition of thy heart, the good works thou hast done and shalt do for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, be available unto thee for the remission of thy sins, the increase of thy worth and grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen."

True, the merit of Christ is mentioned in this formula of absolution. But if you look closer you will notice that Christ’s merit is belittled, while monkish merits are aggrandized. They confess Christ with their lips, and at the same time deny His power to save. I myself was at one time entangled in this error. I thought Christ was a judge and had to be pacified by a strict adherence to the rules of my order. But now I give thanks unto God, the Father of all mercies, who has called me out of darkness into the light of His glorious Gospel, and has granted unto me the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord.

We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

transgressor

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

18. If I build up again the things which I destroyed. Go back from Christ to Moses, and teach others to do the same. I make myself a transgressor. For thus I teach men to trust in the works of the law which cannot justify.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

18. εἰ γὰρ. γάρ, to be taken closely with μὴ γένοιτο Rom 9:14-15; Rom 11:1. It is not sinful to abandon the Law in seeking justification, and thus to find oneself on the same level as a sinful Gentile, for the sin is in going back to the Law, as you Galatians are thinking of doing.

ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ. For a similar contrast between καταλύω and οἰκοδομέω, cf. Mar 14:58 (|| Mat 26:61), where however the nuance is quite different. The singular may be due (1) to St Paul’s courtesy in excluding others from the possibility of doing wrong (some critics, e.g. Winer-Schmiedel, § 22. 1, think he purposely thus transferred St Peter’s action to himself); or, better, (2) to his habit of referring possible spiritual experiences and their effect to himself (e.g. Gal 4:6). If this be right he naturally passes on to state what has in fact been his experience (Gal 2:19).

παραβάτην. Rom 2:25; Rom 2:27; Jas 2:9; Jas 2:11[84], cf. παράβασις Gal 3:19 note. A transgressor of God’s will which has been laid down as a path in which to walk.

[84] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω, prove myself, show myself, 2Co 7:11; cf. Rom 3:5; Rom 5:8.

The phrase is stronger than “I am proved.” It means “I, by my own act of rebuilding an error once pulled down, prove even myself in the wrong. I stand convicted by my own new act, yes, as a transgressor of the Law itself” (cf. Gal 2:19).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18.] For (substantiates the μὴ γένοιτο, and otherwise deduces the ὑρέθημεν ἁμαρτωλοί) if the things which I pulled down, those very things (and no others) I again build up (which thou art doing, who in Cæsarea didst so plainly announce freedom from the law, and again here in Antioch didst practise it thyself. The first person is chosen clementiæ causa; the second would have placed Peter, where the first means that he should place himself), I am proving (reff.) myself a transgressor (παραβάτης is the species, bringing me under the genus ἁμαρτωλός. So that παραβ. ἐμ. συνιστ. is the explanation of ἁμαρτωλοὶ εὑρέθημεν). 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 ver. 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 ἐγώ 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

18. εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω, “for if the things that I broke down, these I build up again, I show myself a transgressor.” By this statement the apostle sustains his μὴ γένοιτο, in which he denied the validity of the argument that by becoming a violator of law he had made Christ a minister of sin, the suppressed premise of which was that violation of law was sin. By ἃ κατέλυσα is obviously meant the statutes of the law which Paul had by his conduct declared to be invalid. The reasoning of this sentence is of the type e contrario. So far from its being the case that I commit sin by violating statutes of the law, it is, on the contrary, the fact that if I build up again those commands of the law which I broke down, I show myself therein a transgressor. This was precisely what Peter had done by his vacillating conduct; but Paul instead of saying either “thou” or “we,” tactfully applies the statement to himself. That he uses the form of conditional sentence expressive of simple supposition, not that of condition contrary to fact, is probably due to his really having in mind Peter’s conduct in building up the wall he had before broken down. The statement that not by disobeying but by obeying the statutes of the law he becomes a transgressor is, of course, obviously paradoxical and itself requires proof; this is furnished in v. 19.

On καταλύω and οἰκοδομῶ in their literal sense, cf. Mar 15:29, ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ οἰκοδομῶν. But as applied to a law or the like, καταλύω means “to deprive of force,” “to abrogate” (cf. Mat 5:17: μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας), and οἰκοδομῶ as the antithesis of καταλύω in this sense means to “give force to,” “to render or declare valid.”

The word παραβάτης is doubtless chosen instead of ἀμαρτωλός in order to get rid of the ambiguity of this latter term, which lay at the basis of the opponent’s fallacious reasoning. The παραβάτης is a violator of the law, not of the statutes, but of its real intent. To have added τοῦ νόμου would have been correct, but confusing as introducing a sense of νόμος quite contrary to that in which it occurs throughout the context. The apostle might naturally have precisely reversed this usage, employing παραβάτης for the technical violator of the statute, and ἁμαρτωλός for the real sinner, the man who was not acting according to God’s will, and had he been quite free in the matter it is not improbable that he would have done so. But the usage of his opponents, who employed ἀμαρτωλός rather than παραβάτης for the Gentiles and those who like them did not observe the requirements of the law, compelled him to use this as the ambiguous term, and to resort to παραβάτης when he wished a strictly moral and unambiguous term. It is noticeable, however, that in the only other passage in which he uses the latter word (Rom 2:25, Rom 2:27), it has substantially the same sense as here, designating not one who disregards the letter of the law, but one who is disobedient to its essential ethical spirit, and the passage gains in point and force by applying this forceful term to one who, obedient to the statutes, misses the real meaning of the law.

The verb συνιστάνω, late form of συνίστημι, lit. “to set together,” is in N. T. employed in its active tenses with the meanings “to prove,” and “to commend,” in the former case usually to prove by one’s action, to exhibit in one’s conduct. Thus in Rom 5:8: συνίστησιν δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἔτι ἀμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν. See also 2Co 6:4, 2Co 6:11. There is therefore nothing in the force of the verb that requires the interpretation, “I prove that I was (in that former breaking down) a transgressor,” or that opposes the interpretation, “I show myself therein (i. e., in the present building up) a transgressor.” There are indications that the verb sometimes meant “to establish” (see Num 27:23, Num 27:2 Mac. 14:15, 3 Mac. 1:19, 2:26, though in no case with two accusatives); but this usage does not occur in N. T., and though appropriate to the present passage is not demanded by it.

On the paradox involved in the statement of this verse, see Rom 3:31, where the apostle maintains, and in chap. 4 endeavours to prove, that the principle of faith, rejecting law, is not hostile to law but consonant with it; Rom 8:1-4, where he declares in effect that the law is done away that the requirements of the law may be fulfilled; and Gal. chap. 5, where having in v. 1 insisted upon freedom from the law, he nevertheless in v. 14 distinctly implies the necessity of fulfilling the law.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.