Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:17 - 2:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:17. The δέ dialectically carries on the refutation of Peter; but the protasis beginning with εἰ cannot have its apodosis in εὑρέθημεν κ . ἀ . ἁμ . (Hofmann[98]); on the contrary, it runs on as far as ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛΟΊ , 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 Ἰουδαΐζειν 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 ἁμαρτωλός , 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 ζητοῦντες and ΕὙΡΈΘΗΜΕΝ is, as before, Peter and Paul.
ΖΗΤΟῦΝΤΕς ] emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding sentence of purpose, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν κ . τ . λ .; so that this ΖΗΤΕῖΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘ . is not in reality different from the ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ ΕἸς ΧΡΙΣΤ ., but denotes the same thing as respects its tendency. To the ζητοῦντες then corresponds the ΕὙΡΈΘΗΜΕΝ , 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 εὑρέθημεν we must, however, notice that—as in the apodosis ἈΡᾺ ΧΡΙΣΤΌς Κ . Τ . Λ . we cannot without proceeding arbitrarily supply anything but the simple ἘΣΤΊΝ , and not ἌΝ ἮΝ (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 εὑρέθ ., in contrast to ζητοῦντες κ . τ . λ ., the accessory idea of something unexpected suggests itself (comp. on Mat_1:20).
ἐν Χριστῷ ] nothing else than what was previously put as ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ , 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: ἐν νόμῳ , Gal_3:11, and the ἰδία δικαιοσύνη , Rom_10:3.
καὶ αὐτοί ] et ipsi, also on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of ἁμαρτωλοί previously referred to in Gal_2:15.
ἆρα Χ . ἁμαρτ . διάκ ] is, at any rate, a question (Vulgate, numquid), for with Paul μὴ γένοιτο is always preceded by a question (Rom_3:4; Rom_6:2; Gal_3:21, et al.). “With this, however, either mode of writing, ἄρα (Lachmann) or ἆρα (Tischendorf), may stand. Both express igitur, rebus sic se habentibus; but ἆρα (Luk_18:8; Act_8:30), although Paul does not elsewhere use it (but just as little does he use an interrogative ἄρα [100]), is the livelier and stronger. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 39 f. To take ἆρα for ἆρʼ οὔ , nonne (Olshausen, Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to apprehend the subtlety of the passage, the question in which (not ἆρα in itself, as held by Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical suspicion of doubtfulness (comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmid. 14, ed. Heind.). Besides, ἆρα is never really used for ἆρʼ οὔ , although it sometimes seems so (Herm. ad Viger. p. 823; Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. p. 476; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 216). See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 1. Rückert 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 εὑρισκόμεθα ; that the comparison with the Gentiles implied in καὶ αὐτοί 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 μὴ γένοιτο , but, passing over the μὴ γένοιτο 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 εὑρέθημεν (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 ἄρα , do not assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, but does not correspond with the μὴ γένοιτο which follows; while Hilgenfeld unnecessarily supposes a breviloquence: “then I ask, Is then Christ,” etc.?
Χριστός ] “in quo tamen quaerimus justificari,” Bengel.
ἁμαρτ . διάκ .] ἁμαρτ . emphatically prefixed, in contrast to the δικαιωθῆναι : one, through whom sin receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted.[102] The opposite, διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης , 2Co_11:15.
[98] Hofmann explains it, as if Paul had written εἰ δὲ ἐζητοῦμεν (if we, when we became believers, sought, etc.) δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ , εὑρέθημεν κ . τ . λ . (we thereby exhibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). According to Hofmann, the εὑρέθημεν 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 ἁμαρτίας is assumed to be taken in a different sense from ἁμαρτωλοί ,—the latter in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former as vitiositas ethnica. Holsten also understands ἁμαρτίας 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 εὑρέθημεν (instead of εὑρισκόμεθα ), 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 ἁμαρτίας διάκονος 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 ( κατέλυσα ).
[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.”