Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:18 - 2:18
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Gal_2:18. Ground assigned for the μὴ γένοιτο : 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 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 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, 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.