Gálatas 2

Gálatas 2

Cole - ‘But if, at the very moment when we are desiring to be justified through Christ, we prove to be sinners ourselves, does that mean that Christ is only causing us to sin? Perish the very thought. The passage 2:17-19 is again not easy to interpret. Here the problem is not disjointed thought and language, but rather some ambiguities in the first sentence. The question centres on the exact meaning of heurethēmen hamartōloi, found to be sinners, translated above as ‘prove to be sinners’ (NIV has ‘it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners’). In view of the later development of the argument, NEB mg. is probably right with ‘we no less than the Gentiles have accepted the position of sinners’. In either case, hamartōloi, sinners, is to be understood with reference to our position in the eyes of God rather than our direct moral condition, although it is the same word used above for ‘Gentile sinners’, and this can hardly be an accident, since a different word is used below. Those who have thought that the word referred to actual sin see here a direct reference to the charge made by the Judaizers that Paul preached ‘antinomianism’. To the Jew, Paul’s gospel of salvation by free grace through faith in Christ would remove all incentive for moral effort and all desire to avoid sin. In their eyes, such a doctrine would lead to a lower moral standard than under the law of Moses. Therefore, even Christ would have only become hamartias diakonos, an agent of sin, or ‘an abettor of sin’ (NEB), one who ‘promotes sin’ (NIV). Paul rightly recoils from such a blasphemy with horror. As often, his first reaction to this sort of charge is not theological argument, but a strong statement that this is utterly inconsistent with the revealed nature of God. There is no need for him to show in detail at this stage how utterly false such a charge would be. In the third and last section of the letter (‘The argument from results’, 5:2-6:18), Paul will develop this thought further. If the first sentence had been standing by itself, unquestionably the above would have been the simplest interpretation. But in view of what follows, it may be better to understand it something like the following: ‘If, at the very moment when we say that we ourselves are justified by faith alone, we turn out to be preaching to others that “faith alone” is inadequate, but that they must keep the law as well, does that not mean that trusting in Christ is only leading them into sin? for it is teaching them not to trust the law.’ The exact meaning of dikaioumai, translated conventionally ‘be justified’, need not be discussed in detail, since the dispute here is not over what ‘justification’ is, but how it is to be obtained. In general terms, it means to be put in right relation with God. BAGD therefore translates the verb as, ‘to be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous, and thereby become dikaios (righteous), receive the divine gift of dikaiosynē (righteousness)’. This reflects the modern swing from a purely forensic understanding of the verb (which could, at extremes, resemble a legal fiction) to the understanding that it is fundamentally a ‘salvation-word’, closely connected with the biblical concept of grace. Without in any way obliterating the biblical distinction between justification and sanctification, it is important to realize that being ‘put right’ with God involves and issues in a subsequent total change in our moral behaviour, though this in itself could never commend us to God. (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries – Galatians) Homer Kent - It is best, therefore, to regard Paul as using the word “sinners” (hamartōloi) in a sense that has been colored by the Jewish expression “sinners of the Gentiles” (ex ethnōn hamartōloi) in Gal 2:15. His question means this: If Jews who believe in Christ for their justification then proceed to forsake their traditional adherence to all the rules of the Mosaic Law and begin living apart from it as did the Gentiles (and Jewish Christians in Antioch, including Peter, had been doing this), was this actually a sin against God, and one which Christ had prompted them to commit? To Paul such a thought was monstrous, and he proceeds to show that it was the reverting to law which involved transgression, not the opposite. (The Freedom of God's Sons - Galatians, 1981) Phil Newton - see below. The UBS Handbook on Galatians adds that "Try is literally “seek,” and it should be rendered in such a way that it does not mean simply attempting or striving without any assurance of success, but rather desiring fervently or hoping (RSV “endeavor,” Knox “putting our hopes of justification in Christ”). Seeking (trying) (2212)(zeteo) means giving attention and priority to and deliberately pursuing after something. In classical Greek zeteo was often used as a technical term for philosophical investigation, something “examined, considered” or “deliberated.” The present tense speaks of continuous action. " The seeking does not suggest that we are unsure of the success, but points rather to the desire and the hope of the believers." (Ridderbos) Sinners (268) see preceding note on hamartolos Justified (1344) see preceding note on dikaioo John Stott on the phrase justified in Christ - That is, our justification takes place when we are united to Christ by faith. And someone who is united to Christ is never the same person again. Instead, he is changed. It is not just his standing before God which has changed; it is he himself—radically, permanently changed. To talk of his going back to the old life, and even sinning as he pleases, is frankly impossible. He has become a new creation and begun a new life. This amazing change, which comes over somebody who is justified in Christ, Paul now unfolds. He describes it in terms of a death and a resurrection. Twice in Gal 2:19 and Gal 2:20 he speaks of this dying and this rising to life again. Both take place through union with Christ. It is Christ’s death and resurrection in which we share. (The Message of Galatians) In Christ - Wuest feels " it is better to use it with the locative of sphere and translated in Christ, since Christ is the sphere within which his justification was procured and applied, Christ being his righteousness.(Wuest Word Studies - Eerdman Publishing Company Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 - used by permission) Related Resource: See study on meaning and significance of locative of sphere MAY IT NEVER BE! Is Christ then a minister of sin - Paul repudiates the false assumption of the Judaizers who charged that Christ is the promoter and encourager of sin in that He causes the Jew to abandon the law as a justifying agency, and in doing so, puts himself on the common plane of a Gentile whom he calls a sinner and a dog. The Judaizers argued that in view of the fact that violation of the law is sin, therefore, abandonment of the law in an effort to be justified in Christ is also Sin. Thus Christ is the Promoter of sin. (Wuest) Minister (servant , deacon) (1249)(diakonos) is from the word group (diakonos, diakoneo, diakonia) which focuses on the rendering or assistance or help by performing certain duties, often of a humble or menial nature, and including such mundane activities as waiting on tables or caring for household needs, activities that to many would seem to be without dignity (not true of course in God's eyes, Pr 15:3, Rev 22:12+). In summary, the basic idea of this word group is that of humble, submissive, personal service, with less emphasis on a specific office or a particular function. As Matthew Henry once said "Those whom God will employ are first struck with a sense of their unworthiness to be employed." May it never be! (mē genoito) - God forbid. Literally it means "may it never come into existence" or "may it not be thought of." Spurgeon on may it never be - Justification by faith does not make us think lightly of sin. On the contrary, it creates in us such love to God that we loathe the very idea of offending Him. For the tendency of the gospel of grace is to excite gratitude in those who receive it. If I am freely pardoned, then I must love him who has thus generously forgiven me. Gratitude is the root of true virtue and the mainspring of all holiness. If there are base-minded men who can suck poison out of this honeycomb, is Christ to be blamed for their evildoing? God forbid! But if, on the other hand, you and I go back to trusting in works, then we are indeed guilty in the sight of God. Leon Morris states, "It is Paul's most emphatic repudiation of any idea to which it refers"1 and is often used by Paul to refute any possible false implication that might be drawn from his teaching." It is a concept which is so repulsive to Paul that it causes him to exclaim, "may it never be." The exclamation "me genoito" is a aorist, middle, optative. The optative is the mood of wish or desire. It is Paul's wish that this not be their attitude or thinking. Middle voice speaks of personal benefit for them not to think this. Me genoito - With one exception, this is primarily a Pauline phrase - 15x in 15v - Lk. 20:16; Ro 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Co. 6:15; Gal. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 Phil Newton continues his exposition from Gal 2:16... Grace is confusing to the natural mind. It is so contrary to our human impulses and self-made security. By grace we mean the work of God on the sinner's behalf, not due to anything merited by the sinner, but purely out of the love, mercy, and sovereign purpose of God. Here we speak of the specific grace of God in saving sinners by the merits of Jesus Christ. The sinner has nothing to offer God in exchange for righteousness. He is completely helpless to improve his standing with God, so God Himself intervenes on the sinner's behalf. He satisfies the demands of His righteousness through His Son and accepts the death of Christ in the place of the sinner being judged. The sinner receives the 'alien righteousness' of Jesus Christ by faith, a faith which is also a gift of God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul explains that justification is applied to the sinner by his entering into a union with Jesus Christ by faith, for he speaks of "seeking to be justified in Christ," with the emphasis on "in Christ." This phrase is common in Paul's epistles. He means by being "in Christ," that the believer is now joined to Christ, he is in relationship to Christ by faith, so that all of the merits of Jesus Christ have become the believer's. In this context, being "in Christ" is juxtaposed against being "in the Law." It is in the sphere of relationship to Jesus Christ that sinners are declared righteous before God, never in the sphere of relationship to the Law. The Law cannot justify nor make alive; it can only condemn lawbreakers. In contrast, Jesus Christ can justify because of the sufficiency of His own righteousness in fulfilling the Law and through the propitiation (divine satisfaction) in His death. Let us keep in mind Paul's emphasis on being "justified in Christ," for here he is also addressing the major problem we find in the Galatian epistle. We recall that Paul illustrates the problem of what was happening in Galatia through a situation that arose in Antioch (in the Galatian region) with Peter. Peter had trusted in Christ alone for his justification, but when certain Jews who came from Jerusalem arrived in Antioch, Peter's previous fellowship with Gentiles was broken off. The Jewish-Christian visitors sneered at the very idea of "breaking the law" by a Jew having any fellowship with a Gentile. So Peter withdrew, and in doing so, confused the truth of the gospel in Antioch (Gal 2:14). Those who had been watching him were suddenly confused in thinking that the merits of Jesus Christ alone were not enough for their justification. Now they got the impression, especially with the overbearing message of the Judaizers, that in order for a Gentile to be justified he had to totally conform to the Jewish ceremonial law. They were left thinking, 'Christ is not enough'. Here was the question of the Judaizers which they posed to the Gentile Christians in Galatia: 'How can you be justified if you are not keeping the ceremonial law? The law says that God's people are not to have fellowship with the uncircumcised, so how can you claim to be justified if you are still a sinner and lawbreaker?' Their idea of being a "sinner" was not breaking the moral laws prohibiting murder, adultery, and stealing, which we find in the Ten Commandments. In this particular context, they had in mind the ceremonial laws of Judaism. They wanted to require that Gentiles maintain the various laws that were distinctively Jewish in order to be justified. So they were insisting that if you are justified only through faith in Christ, then Christ has become a minister of sin for all of those who do not keep the ceremonial laws. This is where Paul's ire rises! "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!" The "we ourselves...also" points to fellow Jewish Christians. Paul had been a stickler for keeping the ceremonial law as a means of justification. But no longer! He had entered into union with Jesus Christ by faith, so that all of the work of Christ was applied to his life and he was justified before God. But he no longer continued to keep the ceremonial law as a means to justification. He was considered a "sinner" by the Jews. Now they were accusing Christ of being a "minister of sin." Paul uttered his strongest prohibition: "May it never be!" This was his typical way of repudiating a wrong inference from a right premise. Yes, we are justified in Christ; that is the correct premise. The wrong inference is now corrected: No, Christ does not become a minister of sin by no longer requiring adherence to the ceremonial law, for no one was ever justified by adherence to the law in the first place! He points out that they have failed to understand that "since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." Therefore, these Judaizers are speaking about that which they do not understand. Perhaps someone among us has fallen into this same trap. You find the message of faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone to be repulsive! You resist the whole idea that you can do nothing to contribute to your salvation. You may not be thinking of circumcision or participation in various ceremonial rituals, but you nonetheless are adding some religious activity as a necessity for salvation. Maybe it is your baptism or your church activity or some act of service which you think must be added to the work of Christ. You are thinking, 'all of this teaching of Christ alone is just wrong; I must do my part too if I am to be justified'. With Paul we declare, "May it never be!" For the real sin is resting in the law for your salvation, for that puts the glory of justification in your own ability, rather than upon the grace of God. The real transgression is adhering to the Law for justification. This is what Paul has in mind in Gal 2:18 when he wrote, "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor." (Galatians 2:17-19 Justified by Faith 4) Galatians 2:18 "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. Greek: ei gar ha katelysa (I had torn down - V-AIA-1S) tauta palin oikodomō (V-PIA-1S) parabatēn emauton synistanō (I prove - V-PIA-1S) Amplified: For if I [or any others who have taught that the observance of the Law of Moses is not essential to being justified by God should now by word or practice teach or intimate that it is essential to] build up again what I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor. Phillips But if I attempt to build again the whole structure of justification by the Law then I do, in earnest, make myself a sinner. Wuest For if the things I tear down, these again I build up, I exhibit myself as a transgressor.(Eerdmans Publishing - used by permission) NET Galatians 2:18 But if I build up again those things I once destroyed, I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God's law. GNT Galatians 2:18 εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω. NLT Galatians 2:18 Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. KJV Galatians 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. ESV Galatians 2:18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. ASV Galatians 2:18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. CSB Galatians 2:18 If I rebuild the system I tore down, I show myself to be a lawbreaker. NIV Galatians 2:18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. NKJ Galatians 2:18 "For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. NRS Galatians 2:18 But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. YLT Galatians 2:18 for if the things I threw down, these again I build up, a transgressor I set myself forth; NAB Galatians 2:18 But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor. NJB Galatians 2:18 If I now rebuild everything I once demolished, I prove that I was wrong before. GWN Galatians 2:18 If I rebuild something that I've torn down, I admit that I was wrong to tear it down. BBE Galatians 2:18 For if I put up again those things which I gave to destruction, I am seen to be a wrongdoer. YLT for if the things I threw down, these again I build up, a transgressor I set myself forth; Ga 2:4,5,12-16,21 4:9-12 5:11 Ro 14:15 1Co 8:11,12 Galatians 2 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries For (gar) is a term of explanation which should always prompt the question "What is being explained?" In context Paul has just declared "May it never be!" and now proceeds to give the reason one should do "away with such a thought." Paul is explaining why it is absolutely absurd to consider Christ is a minister of sin (Gal 2:17)! Vine considers the other possibility that for is "introducing a succinct statement of the conclusive reason why the law must be definitely abandoned as a means of justification." If I rebuild what I have once destroyed - The Amplified version helps understand what Paul means stating that those "who have taught that the observance of the Law of Moses is not essential to being justified by God should now by word or practice teach or intimate that it (observance of the Law) is essential to" being justified, that is the real transgression. Phillips paraphrases it this way - "But if I attempt to build again the whole structure of justification by the Law then I do, in earnest, make myself a sinner." Notice the we of v17 is changed to the "I" in v18.