chapter 2
chapter 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PAUL’S MISSIONARY COMMISSION BY THE APOSTOLIC CONFERENCE
2:1–10
1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
2 And I went up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running, or had run, in vain.
3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6 But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man’s person)—they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:
7 but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
8 (for he that wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
10 only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do.
This section continues the defense of Paul’s apostolic qualifications. The argument now, however, no longer concerns solely his independence in relation to the apostles at Jerusalem, but concerns also their acquiescence with him. This acquiescence was demonstrated when the issue of missions to the Gentiles was discussed at the so-called apostolic council at Jerusalem.
1 Once more (cf. 1:18, 21) the sentence begins with then, and once more a segment of time is indicated which sheds light on the relationship existing between Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem. Now the time-period indicated comprises no fewer than fourteen years, fourteen years, of course, in which the termini a quo and ad quem perhaps are being reckoned as a full year. It is self-evident that the terminus a quo is not again (as in 1:18) to be reckoned from the date of Paul’s conversion, but from the visit to Jerusalem mentioned in verse 21. Throughout this time, nothing had happened that spelled any change in his relations with the other apostles or was particularly deserving of mention. This period was long enough certainly, if it be assumed as necessary, for Paul to become fully conscious of his own calling, and to develop himself in his independence.
The reason why Paul mentions this visit of fourteen years later is not quite the same as that of the visit designated in 1:18 ff. At issue there was the formal consideration of his authority as apostle; at issue here in 2:1 is material agreement about a very pressing point: whether the Gentiles are bound by the law of Moses. The use of again need not mean: for the second time. It does not rule out the possibility of a visit sometime between the occasions indicated in 1:18 and 2:1 (see below). Barnabas and Titus are now named as companions on the journey. Barnabas was the man who had immediately taken Paul’s part (cf. Acts 9:27), was intimately involved in all sorts of work with Paul (Acts 11:25, 30; 12:25; 13:2 ff.) and at the same time, since way back, had had certain relations with the leaders and the church at Jerusalem (cf. Acts 4:36, 37; 9:27; and 10:22), and he was, probably because of his having originally come from Cyprus (Acts 4:37), peculiarly fitted to serve in a mediating capacity in the situation narrated here. Presumably the companionship of this journey antedated the estrangement between Paul and Barnabas reported in Acts 15:39.
The way in which Titus is brought into the account, suggests that he had a more subordinate position and that his going along was based on Paul’s initiative. He was a Gentile, and was not circumcised. His presence with Paul, consequently, amounted to a living, personal example of Paul’s position, and served very well to drive Paul’s conviction home to others. In the correspondence between Paul and the church at Corinth, Titus played an important role (2 Cor. 2:13, 7:6, and other places; cf., however, also 2 Tim. 4:10 and Titus 1:4).
The problem which has given occasion for much discussion and difference of opinion is which journey of Paul to Jerusalem is here being referred to; and, more specifically, whether it can be identified with one of Paul’s journeys to Jerusalem as reported in the Acts. The journey mentioned in Acts 18:22 cannot be involved here (for a contrary judgment, see E. Barnikol, Die drei Jerusalemreisen des Paulus, 1929). No arguments can be found to support the view, either in the letter to the Galatians, or in the Acts. More formidable is the case for the view, taken by various scholars, that the journey of Gal. 2:1 is identical with the collection-journey of Acts 11:30 (cf. 12:25). Proponents of this view are especially impressed by the consideration that Paul could not fail to mention this trip in this connection without doing violence to the truth, and they point particularly to his oath in 1:20. However, as we see it, this sort of argumentation proceeds from a mistaken assumption, namely, that the apostle was engaged here in giving a comprehensive survey of the relations he had had, during his apostleship, with Jerusalem and the leaders of the church at that place. This is something which the apostle at no point claims to be doing. His purpose is simply, on the one hand, to set forth his independence as an apostle over against his challengers, and, on the other, his agreement with the apostles. In 1:16 ff. that first issue is up for consideration: he had not received his calling from men, but from Christ, and he had not carried it out as bound to the reins of the other apostles, but had learned how to do it in his own right. Now, in Chapter 2, the issue is the material question between him and his opponents in Galatia and the attitude of the apostles towards this question (see Exposition above). Hence the possibility of yet another journey intervening between those of Chapters 1 and 2 need not be ruled out by such argumentation, nor denominated a suppression of the full truth. All one can infer from the facts in the matter is that such another journey was of no importance for what Paul wants to accomplish in this letter.
Once one has rid himself of the idea that Paul wants to give a summary here of all his trips to Jerusalem, one is much more open to the view that identifies the journey of 2:1 with the one to the so-called apostolic council (Acts 15) rather than with the “collection-journey” of Acts 11:30. In both accounts, after all, despite all the differences in the mode of description, the purpose of the journey is stated to be the settlement of the differences concerning Gentile Christians. The differences between Paul’s account in Galatians 2 and that of Acts 15 can be discussed in what follows below: now it may suffice to say that these differences are not materially contradictory, and take their rise in the difference of point of view. In our letter the conference at Jerusalem is described in a polemical-apologetical argument; in Acts 15 it is described in a more impersonal and generally historical narrative (see the Exposition).
Another matter is this: it is said that on the basis of internal evidence, that is, on the basis of grounds given in the letter itself, the identification of the visit of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 must be challenged. The most important of these alleged internal grounds are probably these: (a) that the attitude of Peter (described in Gal. 2:11–14) at Antioch is not to be accounted for if the decision reported in Acts 15 had been taken only a short time before; and (b) that it is incredible to suppose that, if Paul in this letter to the Galatians could have had the support of the apostolic council, he would have done anything but make a simple appeal to the decisions of Jerusalem in his opposition to the Judaistic contenders. For a further account of these arguments, see the Introduction, V.
So far as the first of these arguments goes, there is no denying a certain disparity between Peter’s attitude at Antioch and the decisions taken at Jerusalem as described in Acts 15. This disparity exists, however, also within the pale of Galatians 2. Paul even speaks in 2:13 of a certain “dissembling.” However, what is called inexplicable in Peter’s attitude is something for which Peter is accountable, and cannot be removed by making the event of Galatians 2 a different event from that of Acts 15. In fairness, however, it should also be kept in mind that in the formal sense, too, there was a certain difference between the decisions approved at Jerusalem (according to Acts 15) and what Peter felt that he had to disapprove of at Antioch (according to Galatians 2). The issue at Jerusalem, also according to Acts 15, was the freedom of the Gentiles, and the issue at Antioch was the binding of the Jews to the ceremonial law. Because Peter did not draw the right conclusions from what had been decided at Jerusalem and because Paul had to reprimand him for his error, we can hardly speak of a flagrant disparity in Peter’s attitude. On this ground, then, the identity of the visits of Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1 ff. cannot be successfully challenged.
In order to judge of the worth of the second argument indicated above, one would have to be very familiar with the situation in the churches of Galatia, and be able to prove that the Judaistic contenders would have allowed themselves to be silenced by an appeal to what the apostles had endorsed. It is true, they apparently wanted to undermine Paul’s authority by presenting him as the least authentic among the apostles. But that they themselves were not loyally subject to those other apostles is clear enough from the fact that they wanted to force the Gentiles to be circumcised. The absence of any appeal, consequently, to the decisions of Acts 15 in Galatians does not constitute a ground for holding that those decisions had not been taken when Paul wrote this letter. Moreover, it is quite in accord with the whole bearing of this letter that Paul did not want to borrow his authority in the matter of circumcision from the apostles, nor from an appeal to what they approved of as settling the matter. He wanted to determine this issue on objective-religious and Christological grounds, and so to safeguard the churches against the domination of Judaism.
As we see it, consequently, there is nothing in the evidence adduced that would make for a justifiable identification of the journey of Galatians 2 with that of Acts 11 and 12 rather than with that of Acts 15. On the contrary, it is necessary to point out the weighty objections to such a view. Nothing in Acts 11 and 12 suggests that the issue of the Gentiles as defined in Galatians 2 was discussed during the “collection-journey.” For all these reasons, we think it most justified, in explaining Galatians 2, to regard the identity of the council in Jerusalem of Acts 15 with that of Galatians 2 our proper point of departure. Naturally, this does not mean that various points of difference will not on occasion have to be discussed.
2 Paul’s declaration that he went to Jerusalem on the basis of, and in agreement with, a revelation, tells us that he took this important step neither arbitrarily nor by way of experiment, but in the strength of divine commissioning and empowerment. Nor is it in conflict with this view that he also went on assignment from the church at Antioch (Acts 15:1). It is even possible that the revelation did not come to him personally (cf. Acts 13:2, 4). But the conclusion lies ready at hand that he received this revelation when he was in a state of doubt concerning which direction the way of the Lord pointed, and that he received certainty about the desirability of the journey to Jerusalem. In the next following words we first learn of the real purpose of the journey, although this purpose is expressed in a paratactical construction. Hence when we read further and I laid before them the gospel this does not mean to say that Paul had begun to feel insecure about the content of his gospel. But it was necessary that everybody should not be going his own way. This was a communal matter. And especially the mother-church at Jerusalem and its most prominent leaders ought to share in this decision. These leaders are designated as those who were of repute. This need not be interpreted as an ironical remark; it positively is not that. True, it is remarkable that the expression occurs four times. Such repetition may imply that Paul is here taking over a phrase used by the opponents in designating the most prominent leaders at Jerusalem. The persons involved are, according to verse 9, apparently in the first place Peter, John, and James. To these he presented his matter privately. In other words, there were public and private discussions. The purpose of these private discussions was to circumvent the possibility that, by yielding to the wishes of the Judaizers, Paul’s work, at least that of the past, should practically be made useless. This does not mean to say that Paul would have stood ready a priori to abide by the decision of the leaders at Jerusalem—for that would have been to declare his apostleship and his missionary commission dependent upon their views. However, if at Jerusalem it was proposed to do as the Judaizers wished, those who proposed it had better know that this would be tantamount to obliterating the work which Paul had done with so much exertion. If the Gentiles also had to subject themselves to the law of Moses, Paul might as well begin all over again from the very start.
3 Anticipating the favorable issue of the discussions, Paul writes: but not even Titus (an uncircumcised Christian from among the Gentiles) was compelled to be circumcised. His presence with Paul raised the whole problem in palpably concrete form, and yet, as it turned out, was not the occasion for laying down circumcision as a sine qua non. That then practically settled the matter. Certainly if Titus, as a member of the delegation, could move about among Jewish Christians, one could hardly lay down a more exacting requirement for the conduct of Gentiles among each other.
This is the first point at which circumcision is mentioned in the letter. That it is, however, the great point of contention in the whole controversy between Paul and his opponents is the tacit assumption of the entire book of Galatians.
4 It is difficult to make out the precise significance of verse 4. It may be that what we have in this verse, although it does not quite fit the syntax, is a hint as to the source from which the opposition at Jerusalem came, and by whom the demand that Titus be circumcised was proposed. In designating those persons the false brethren, Paul challenges their right to belong to the church. They made their approach as brothers in the Lord, and apparently were received as such also, and so were granted the right to speak in the church. But the way in which they entered (a stealthy, dishonest way, concealing their real motives), and their conduct after they were in, marked them as false and unauthentic members of the church. Paul calls the real purpose for which they stole in: to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. The figure is that of a spy who infiltrates the enemy camp, plays the part of a friend to the cause, and so gets to learn the strategic situation of the opponent. By our liberty the apostle means, as becomes more evidently apparent in the following chapter, the freedom from the law brought by Christ. This freedom concerns not only the curse of the law, and the ethical impotence in which sinful man confronts the demand of the law—an impotence which Christ removes—but also the content of the law in its historical, Mosaic form. If, on the one hand, it is plain also from the Galatians, that the apostle continues to maintain the fulfillment of the law as the purpose of the Christian life (cf. 5:14, 23; Rom. 8:4; 13:8, and other places); on the other, his insistence is plain also that the real content of the law can be known only in consideration of the finished work of Christ. What stands between the law and the believers, in respect not merely of the results of transgressing the law and the possibility of fulfilling it, but in respect also of establishing the content of the law, is: Christ. It is in that comprehensive sense that the believers in Christ Jesus can be said to be free (of the law). And it was this inalienable possession of the church which the false brethren tried to take away from it, by trying to bring it once more under the dominion of the law. The thing the apostle is here describing was in general the effort of the Judaistic zealots in the church, but it was particularly the effort of those whom Paul had come to know as his opponents in Jerusalem.
5 According to the translation which we are following, the apostle describes his attitude and that of his fellows as adamant. At issue, after all, was not merely the question of whether or not Titus ought to be circumcised, but also that of the truth of the gospel: that is, its true, unmodified content. In other instances Paul wanted to give in, to accommodate himself, in order to aid the influence of the gospel (cf. 5:12, 1 Cor. 9:19–23, Acts 16:3, 21:23 ff.). But this time the issue was drawn in optima forma and he knew no yielding. And Paul indicates that in taking this resolute stand he had the churches of Galatia in his mind’s eye. He wanted no damage done to the essence of the gospel once preached to them.
6 The rhetorical structure of this verse, too, is hard to analyze. The manner in which the apostle writes betrays a certain excitement. Again he refers to the leaders at Jerusalem as those who were reputed (see the Exposition of verse 2), this time with the amplification: to be somewhat. Again he is not talking in ironical vein in disparagement of those leaders—as a matter of fact, he is even now in the act of saying that they put no impediments in his way—but, all the same, there lurks in this continuous repetition (cf. verse 9), and in the parenthetically appended whatsoever they are, and the like, an indirect but undeniable criticism of the way in which others were trying to play off the prestige of these leaders against him. Hence, while Paul on the one hand can now cite the approbation of his career by those leaders, on the other he lets it be felt, with a certain deliberateness, that he was less impressed by the prestige of those leaders than they who are apparently trying to convince him and others of its scope and importance. It was merely the agreement between him and the other apostles that he wanted to stress; accordingly, there was no reason to play himself off against them. By the whatsoever they were Paul is certainly suggesting the unusual privilege which the apostles had once enjoyed, namely, their association with Jesus. But that too is irrelevant to his present purpose. Nor does he report his agreement with them in order to cover himself with their prestige. For: God accepteth no man’s person. And everything depends upon God’s judgment. If the principle at stake were wrong, Paul would not approve it because it has the support of people with reputation. He had not gone to Jerusalem to subject himself to the judgment of the apostles; he went rather to convince them of the rightness of his stand.
The clause interrupted by the parenthesis is not completed, but is begun anew, this time in active form, with who were of repute serving as the subject. There has been much difference of opinion about the meaning of the word translated to impart in the version above. As we see it, this translation is good; it takes account, too, of the literal meaning: to impose something. True, this use of the original term does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. But this means little, in view of the fact that the term itself occurs only here and in 1:16. The meaning, then, ought to be clear. The leaders at Jerusalem have laid no more upon Paul in the way of obligation in his missionary work among the Gentiles than he himself had already taken cognizance of. And the specific thrust of this bears on the matter of observing the Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 15:28).
7–9 Now comes the positive element. The construction is again rather difficult; verse 8 gives rise to another parenthesis, though without disturbing the context of meaning. The words when they saw indicate that the leaders acted not only upon Paul’s argumentation, but upon their own recognition and conviction of his case. In the construction the gospel of the (un) circumcision, the genitive looks to the address of the gospel preaching, not to its content. The gospel was in both instances the same gospel. The fact that the gospel of the circumcision is identified specifically with Peter, and that of the uncircumcision with Paul himself, is certainly owing to the leading role of these two. The parenthesis of verse 8 gives the reason for the dawning insight that the preaching of the gospel had been entrusted to Paul as well as to Peter. The same God empowered both of them, and caused His cooperation in the apostolic ministry of both to become plainly evident. The reference presumably is to the signs and wonders and conversions which were fruits of the labor. Apostleship in this connection has reference not to the commission, the mandate (Acts 1:25, Rom. 1:5), but to the carrying out of it, the execution. By constantly making Paul’s work among the Gentiles the counterpart of Peter’s work among the Jews, the conference at Jerusalem acknowledged Paul in his full right. As for the divine commission and authorization of Peter—that was already a firm conviction for those who met there. Remarkable in this account is the very great importance attached to external manifestation of the divine power in the gospel work. This manifestation constitutes not the condition, it is true, but the seal (1 Cor. 9:2) and the signs (2 Cor. 12:12) of the apostolic genuineness.
Verse 9 continues the thought of verse 7. The grace comprises in one word what has been said in verses 7 and 8, that is, the ministry of the gospel and the divine power manifesting itself in this ministry, qualified, both of them, as an undeserved gift. This time, because of the importance of the decision here announced, they who were reputed are named by name. James is mentioned first—a circumstance from which his special position at Jerusalem can be deduced (cf. Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; cf. the Exposition of 1:19). Peter is called Cephas. The Aramaic form suggests the life at Jerusalem. John can refer only to the son of Zebedee. Some, it is true, have wanted to make this name refer to John Mark, in order to support a hypothesis about the early death of John the son of Zebedee. The arbitrariness of this is flagrant. The phrase they who were reputed (cf. the Exposition of verses 2 and 6) is now supplied with its complement: to be pillars. Again Paul’s intention is not to take away from the prestige of those three or to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of their position. Paul wishes merely to indicate that they who in their special eminence had been played off against him were in fact in agreement with him (cf. the Exposition of verse 6). The giving of the right hands represents more than a reciprocal acknowledgment or testimony of friendship: it suggests rather a covenant. The genitive of fellowship qualifies this settlement more precisely. It rested on reciprocal acknowledgment that all were partners in the same cause: belief in Christ, or, better, Christ Himself. This then was not a settlement in which the one is lording it over the other or imposing his will upon the other. Because of the fellowship which they acknowledged, they could arrive at a binding agreement. Thus something was ratified and solemnly approved, something that had already become a fact: namely, that the field of labor was to be divided. And thus the ministry of Paul and Barnabas was sanctioned. That was the important thing. The agreement was inclusive rather than exclusive: that is to say, it did not prevent Paul and Barnabas from working with Jews, and Peter and the others from working with the Gentiles; it meant, rather, that just as the last addressed themselves to the Jews, so it should be the privilege of Paul and Barnabas to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles.
10 What follows next is to be taken, not as the condition, but as the amplification of the agreement. It is to be taken as a request from one of the parties being made to the other. It was the one stipulation (“only”) appended to the major agreement. By the poor Paul is recognizably referring to the poor at Jerusalem (cf. Rom. 15:26). Again and again we learn that the Gentile churches took up collections for the church at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25 ff., 1 Cor. 16:1 ff., 2 Cor. 8:1 ff., 9:1 ff., Acts 11:29 ff., 12:25, and 24:17).
The request for collections implies particularly difficult circumstances at Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor. 8:14). In Acts 11:29 ff. the occasion for a collection was the serious famine under Claudius. Whether the consequences of that had not yet been overcome cannot be determined. It is likely, though, that by this means the thought, expressed by Paul in Romans 15:27, namely, that the Gentile churches had a certain material obligation to the church at Jerusalem, to be given in gratitude for the spiritual gift that it had given them, had found permanent lodging also with the leaders at Jerusalem, who accordingly came out in a plea for their poor. Paul explains in conclusion that he most particularly remembers this agreement, and that he has carried it into effect with a zealous energy.
It is deserving of remark that the apostle makes no mention here of the determinations of the apostolic council about which we read in Acts 15:23–29. He writes “only” of the help to the poor. On the basis of this fact, scholars have wanted to call the report of Acts 15 historically inaccurate on this point. If, however, we read the apostolic enactment of Acts 15 according to the so-called “Western” text, the difficulty diminishes. In that text, the enactment concerning “things strangled” is omitted, and the so-called “golden rule” is added. In that form there is not a single stipulation left that can be called typically Jewish or ceremonial; all that is left is some ethical principles, which already obtained in the Pauline churches, and required no mention as something new or special on this occasion. Still, we can hardly on this ground dismiss the form of the text of Acts 15 which most of the manuscripts give us. Even then, however, it remains a question in how far Paul regarded this enactment as something new, something therefore which restricted the freedom he preached (verse 4), and which therefore required mention at this time. We must not forget that the enactment of Acts 15 bears on freedom from ceremonial stipulations for the Gentiles, and that, as is evident also from other letters of Paul, the line of conduct recommended in the enactment was already being followed by Paul. It was, therefore, unnecessary for him to enter upon anything new because of the agreement named in this verse, except to be zealous in the matter of the collection.
PAUL RESISTS PETER AT ANTIOCH
2:11–21
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15 We being Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God. who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.
This portion corresponds directly with the foregoing, and serves to defend Paul’s apostolic authority over against his challengers. At the same time it constitutes the transition to the grand central part of the letter in which the relationship of gospel and law is treated in full scope. In 1:12 ff. the apostle indicated that he had his commission not from men, but from God Himself, and that in receiving it he had been independent from the other apostles. In 2:1 ff. he pointed to the essential agreement between himself and the leaders at Jerusalem, implying that no one could play these off against him. Now, in 2:11 ff. he demonstrates that he stood so firmly grounded in the conviction of this gospel which he preached to the Gentiles that he had even in public contradicted Peter when the latter threatened to endanger the strength of that gospel. From all this Paul’s opponents and the churches at Galatia may well conclude that Paul was not an upstart, self-promoted apostle to the Gentiles, but that on the contrary he could speak with full authority confirmed by his divine commission, his being in essential harmony with “Jerusalem,” and his defense of the gospel even over against Peter.
The portion of the letter now in hand has always attracted considerable attention, and it has played an important role both in the history of the church and in that of exegetical research. Very soon observers saw a certain threat to Peter’s authority in the church in this part of the letter. So some commentators arrived at the construction that, not Simon Peter, but one of the seventy is here involved (so Clemens Alexandrinus and later Roman Catholics). Others have assumed that this disputation took place by arrangement among the apostles (so Hieronymus and later Roman Catholics). Such interpretations are sheer hypotheses and cannot be accepted. In Luther’s life, too, this part of Paul’s letter bulked very large, both because of what is said in it concerning the law, and because of Paul’s public resistance to Peter. For the Tübingen school (F. C. Baur, and others) these verses constituted the locus classicus of their dialectical reconstruction of original Christianity. Right up into the modern period the hypothesis of the unreconcilable conflict between Paul and Peter has found new adherents (among others, Ed. Schwarz, Ed. Meyer, and H. Lietzmann). Nowhere in the epistles, however, do we read anything about such an antithesis—nor in the Acts. And as for the data of this letter, Peter is not being presented as essentially an opponent, but as a person who did not have the courage of his convictions, and who, accordingly, and apparently with the desired results, was set straight by Paul.
11 Some want to fix the time of Peter’s arrival as preceding the apostolic council, on the ground that otherwise his performance at Antioch would not be intelligible. Against this, it can be said that Peter could come to Antioch, where many Jews were certainly living, notwithstanding the settlement of the council. Further, the difference between Paul and Peter was concerned in the first place, not with the way in which the Gentiles, but with the way in which the Jews should conduct themselves. Although no time indication is given, it seems to lie in the whole bearing of the context that Peter came to Antioch after the apostolic council. Nothing is said here about the purpose of Peter’s coming. The original of the word translated I resisted suggests a reaction to an attack. It is as such that Paul regarded Peter’s performance: as an attack upon the truth of the gospel. Hence Paul resisted him without beating around the bush and in the presence of all the witnesses. The words because he stood condemned presumably mean to suggest that Peter, by acting as he did, condemned himself.
12–13 These verses present the situation in outline. Peter had begun by eating with the Gentile Christians and he kept this up for some time. Eating with them presumably involves more than the celebration of communion. From 1 Cor. 11:20 it is apparent that the celebration of the Supper often coincided with the regular common feasts or meals. Besides, the expression used in verse 14, to live as do the Gentiles, has a wider reference. The Jewish regulations for going about with Gentiles were very strictly exacting, especially the rules of cleanness at meals. At first, that is, before certain came from James, Peter made no objection to a common fellowship with Gentiles on this score. The quoted words need not imply that these people came upon James’ instigation, nor that they were bent on regulating things at Antioch; the words tell us only that those who came were followers of James, and that they insisted on strict observation of the rules for the Jews. Right from the start, therefore, they apparently never participated in a meal with Gentile Christians. It was under the impetus of their presence that Peter drew back and separated himself. The first word suggests an unobtrusive retreat. The second word indicates the result. Instead of fellowship, separation took place between Peter and the Gentile Christians. And the motive was the fear that the Jews would regard Peter as a transgressor of the law. Paul twice labels this attitude as dissembling, as hypocrisy: there was no inner conviction in it but only the adoption of a pose prompted by fear of others. This pusillanimity was true not only of Peter but also of the Jews who were at Antioch and who presumably acted as Peter acted before the arrival of James’ followers. Of these Barnabas is specifically named. So strong was the tug of this hypocrisy that even he who had, together with Paul, founded so many churches among the Gentiles, and certainly had eaten with them, now withdrew himself from eating with Gentile believers.
14 Paul first names the motive that prompted him to take exception to Peter and the others. Irrespective of what might have kept him from doing so, when he saw that the true, unmodified content of the gospel was at stake, he did not scruple to oppose Peter in public. In so doing, he appealed to Peter’s original attitude, to the time when Peter no longer observed the Jewish ethical code in social contact with Gentiles. How could the man now, after such an attitude, again compel the Gentile Christians to live as Jews? Such conduct would certainly prompt the Gentiles to try to live as Jews. Else there would be no room for them at one and the same table with the Jews, and they would remain in a position of inferiority. This first part of Paul’s case therefore points out the inconsistency in Peter’s conduct. Thereupon Paul argues directly from the truth of the gospel. He does not mention the decision that had been taken at Jerusalem. Still, that decision made for the same result. The moment Jews and Gentiles came together, the dilemma turned up again. Paul saw that very clearly in this situation. And he pointed it out to Peter, apparently on the assumption that Peter would agree.
15–16 The problem whether the content of verses 15 and following is still being directed to Peter and is therefore part and parcel of the address delivered before all is difficult to answer with an unequivocal yes or no. Paul is here speaking from the viewpoint of Jewish Christians. It is natural to find the point of departure of this thought in the historical situation just described. That these next following words, however, are intended to be a report of what Paul said on that occasion, is another matter, and need not follow. We can easily picture Paul, beginning at verse 15, as speaking in a more general sense from the vantage point of Jewish Christians. Moreover, we hear nothing further in the sequel about the situation outlined in verse 14. Presumably we are not far from the truth, then, if we regard verses 15–21 as a transition from the historically occasioned to the generally considered aspects. The whole report of the incident at Antioch is after all presented for its illustrative significance. To what extent, however, we shall have to explain the next following verses in reference to verse 14, will become apparent as we proceed, especially in treating verse 17.
The force of verse 15 is concessive: “undoubtedly—we are by nature Jews.” Paul wants to detract nothing from that. The phrase by nature has reference here to the natural constitution of man as determined by descent and birth (cf. e.g., Rom. 2:27). The other phrase, sinners of the Gentiles, is used to designate, not a particular category of people among the Gentiles, but the Gentiles in general. The word sinners as used here (and elsewhere—cf. Mt. 26:45) is synonymous with Gentiles. Paul is appropriating the current Jewish conception and linguistic practice. In both there is reflected not only the Jewish sense of privilege in possessing the Torah but also their self-esteem. What follows in verse 16, however, puts the concessive introductory clause in a singular light. For whatever the Jews might possess in privileged superiority to the Gentiles, they no more than the Gentiles could, on the basis of their privileged position, achieve a righteousness with God. That is the content of the Christian conviction to which Paul, without fear of contradiction, could and had to appeal over against Peter and over against his readers. The not justified is used in the typically Pauline forensic sense. It expresses neither an ethical change or influence, nor an iustum efficere in the sense of causing someone to live a holy, unimpeachable life; it expresses, rather, the juridical judgment of God, in which man is protected from the sanction of the law in the judgment of God, and thus goes out acquitted. Accordingly, by the works means about the same as on the basis of the works. At issue, in other words, is more than a human experience: at issue is God’s verdict. And such an emancipating verdict is impossible for man, whoever he be, on the basis of the works of the law. There is but one way and one means: that of faith in Jesus Christ. Thus the basis for the justification is sought in Jesus Christ, and faith is the means by which man has communion with Christ and shares in His gifts (cf. verse 19 ff.) This faith can at one time be regarded as the means or instrument through which, at another time as the organ out of which, the justification comes. In this way, however, the emphasis is always upon the fact that the justification comes to man not from his works, not from something in himself, but from his relationship with Christ.
The second part of the predication of verse 16 reminds the Jewish Christians, who are all along involved in the reference of the sentence, that (even) they, irrespective of their special privileges, believed on Jesus Christ in order to be justified. The repetition of all these concepts drives home the more forcefully the truth that for the Jews also there is no other way. And this truth is finally confirmed still further by the concluding words of verse 16, in which Paul refers to an utterance in Psalm 143:2. True, the words, by the works of the law, cannot be found in Psalm 143. But this does not rob the reference of its force. In that Psalm the poet gives expression in as general a form as possible to the consciousness that no living man can be justified before God. This implies that the Psalmist did not expect the justification to accrue to the works of the law either. Hence, the negative phase of the “not through works, but through faith alone” was nothing new, since it already lay contained in the genuine sense of guilt of the Old Testament saints. Later Judaism had however fallen away from this profoundly religious sense of guilt.
17 The immediately preceding verses were easy to understand as issuing from the situation described in verse 14. Now, however, there follows an objection, perhaps not so much derived from the occasional event at Antioch (it would, e.g., be difficult to put the objection in Peter’s mouth), but an objection which inevitably shines through every preaching of the justification by faith (cf. Rom. 6:1, 15), and one which is apparently raised here in special relevancy to the readers of this letter. The objection has reference to the seeming ethical danger of the doctrine. Does it not make for godless and normless living? The objection begins by saying something that cannot be denied: if even we (Jews) ourselves, quite as much as the Gentiles, are found to be sinners, and there is, therefore, no essential difference between those who observe the law and the sinners of the Gentiles … And thence the question which, on the basis of that clause, can be asked, and is as a matter of fact always being asked anew: Is this Christ, then, a minister of sin, serving in its cause? The answer could not be more definitely negative. Paul nowhere does injustice to the gravity of sin or to the holiness of the law. Both are always totally assumed.
18 The significance of verse 18 in the logical context is very obscure—a fact which has given rise to all sorts of explanations, and also has its repercussion for the exposition of verse 17. Very plain is the fact that the predications I build up and I destroyed refer to the building up and the breaking down of self-righteousness on the basis of the works of the law. Peter, apparently, had done this: first he had trusted in Christ and thus broken down his own righteousness. Later, apparently, he again wanted to build it up. Nevertheless the bearing of the remark is undoubtedly wider than that. The apostle has in mind also and especially the situation among the Galatians, who, in a far graver sense than Peter, were also engaged in building up what they had first surrendered. Paul speaks here in the supra-individual first person. He wants to make the matter plain, rather than to aim at this or that person. Hence, the question becomes: What is meant by I prove myself a transgressor, and how are we in connection with that to understand the progress of the argument? As we see it, the whole statement of verse 18 should be taken as a further explanation of the God forbid in verse 17. In our opinion, this is possible if we construe the sense of the passage as follows: When a person returns from the point of view of faith to that of the law, he is only increasing his sin. In other words, he is demonstrating anew that he cannot keep the law. Hence a return from faith does not mean a diminution of sin at all, but rather a renewed surrender to it. And verse 19 will indicate what faith in Christ means. In this way verse 18 can be regarded as (the beginning of) a further illumination of 17b. It is as such, too, that the causal for introduces it.
19 In verse 19 the argument is continued. Further cause is shown why faith in Christ cannot be a ministering of sin. So Paul illustrates how he, precisely by expecting nothing from the law, leaves the way open to live unto God, and so emerges from the status of being a transgressor. This, then, at the same time goes to show how appropriate the “God forbid” of verse 17 was.
The apostle contrasts the living unto God with the dying unto the law. By the first term of the contrast is meant the God-directed, God-consecrated life. The possibility of living thus was, however, given him only after he had died to the law. This being dead to the law implies two things: (a) his own impotent ethical condition, and (b) his unprofitableness with regard to the law. The law can no longer use him. He is what a dead servant would be to his master. However, there is a certain irony in this development too. For, he got into this condition of death, in which he is producing nothing for the law, through the law. The law has put him to death for its service, whipped him to death, so to speak, by its demands. It is the same thought as that of 2 Cor. 3:6 (cf. also Gal. 3:21). The thrust is that the law is in no position to give man what it demands of him. All it can do is to demand, to forbid, to judge, and to condemn. So it is that man dies through the law: he is beaten to death by it and falls into God’s judgment. That, then, is not the fault of the law, but of the sinner. The law cannot save, quicken, but only slay the sinner. And this death Paul has now died so that he might live unto God. This is again not to say that this God-consecrated life was Paul’s purpose or his plan, nor that the law had this in mind or granted it; but the factual result is described all the same as a purpose because in this way another power came to master him, and he could proceed to live unto God. We are told about that power in the sequel. In this first part of verse 19 Paul speaks—and this is characteristic of the whole letter to the Galatians—about the law in a negative sense. We are not warranted, however, in drawing wrong conclusions from that, as though Paul did not regard the law as a holy thing (cf. e.g., 5:14). The issue in this whole matter is not about the law as norm but about the law as a life-principle and a life-potential, namely, for serving God. The law cannot give sinful man that potentiality.
20–21 In the Greek text the Christ is placed at the very beginning of this passage. Thus the apostle begins to point out how the life unto God has become possible in him. So the thought that Christ should be the minister of sin turns out to be the very opposite of the truth. For the life unto God is precisely the thing that is determined by Christ, and issues from communion with Him. True, this communion is first of all a communion in death. In order to cause His own to live, Christ first had to subject Himself to the power and the curse of the law, and to surrender Himself to these (cf. 3:13). At the same time, however, the possibility of escape from the curse and the death of the law issues from the death of Christ (cf. Rom. 7:4).
Paul uses the perfect tense in speaking of his having died with Christ, that is, in speaking of something that once took place and has not lost its power since. This thing that has happened somewhere else in the past does not refer to Paul’s subjective experience, but to the death of Christ. The believers, by virtue of their corporate belonging to Him, were included in that dying. Of course, this communion in death materializes subjectively also in the believers, and that precisely is what baptism signifies and seals (Rom. 6:3); in communion with the death of Christ, the believers die to sin, so that its lordship is broken and the freedom of the life unto God is born. It is this life which is now more specifically described: and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me. Obviously this is not a psychological or biological utterance. Paul himself, too, is still living in a certain sense (cf. verse 20b). Rather, the utterance says something about the existential determination of life. This it is which springs no longer from Paul’s natural self, but from Christ. This determination is so overwhelming that one can say: Christ lives in me. Verse 20b explains the life unto God in Christ more particularly: The life that I now (that is, after having died with Christ) live in the flesh (that is, in the human temporality of this life) I live in faith in the Son of God. Such is not to say that Christ lives in me is the same as I live in faith. The first term gives expression to the new redemptive status of the believers—the result of being included in Christ’s death and resurrection. It means also that Christ and His redemption break through into the life of His own by means of His Spirit, and that so Christ lives in them. So they are liberated from the curse as well as from the power of sin, and so their life can be a life unto God. Seen from their side, that life is a life in faith, a consciously Christ-oriented life. And in faith the communion with Christ is also exercised by the believers. From the objective side, this faith is called a faith in the Son of God. So the glory and the power of Christ and of His self-surrender and love are pointed out. Faith in this wonderful, divine love, and the being taken into this love—it is that which redeems life and sets it free. The aorists point to the historical fact of Christ’s loving self-sacrifice. That constitutes the ground for faith in this love. But He who loved thus also lives in His own. Hence the life of faith in Him is not a matter merely of being oriented to what has happened, but is also a new, reborn life, in which the strength of Christ’s love, in which the liberating Spirit, reveals Himself.
Those last words redirect our thought to the subject of whether there is room for anything else alongside of this faith. Verse 21 excludes that possibility: I do not make void the grace of God. Whatever others may want to do … not I. And that is precisely what I should be doing if I again began to rely on the works of the law. Then Christ would not have had to die (cf. 5:11). His death on the cross is at stake. At its profoundest that was the essence of the controversy with Peter. And that is the consequence of what the Galatians are doing also, if they again permit themselves to be brought under the law. That, too, is the thing that will be sharply and forcefully said in the sequel, beginning immediately at 3:1.
ἔπειτα
διά plus the genitive is here used to designate the ending of a period of time. More than μετά with the accusative, it puts the emphasis on the length of the elapsed time (cf. Mark 2:1 and Acts 24:17).
πάλιν: this word is missing in some manuscripts. Perhaps it was omitted because it was interpreted as meaning for the second time, whereas the journey in question was regarded by the scribe as not the first journey of the apostle after that mentioned in 1:18. πάλιν can, however, also mean anew in the general sense, without indication of the number of times involved (cf. John 18:27). So interpreted it might easily have been introduced in connection with 1:18. A decision in the matter is difficult to give, and is comparatively unimportant, if only we keep the real meaning of the word in mind.
συνπαραλαβών.
κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν.
Ἀνατίθεμαι: to submit for judgment.
οἱ δοκοῦντες, used in the absolute sense here, and differing therefore from verse 6a and 9.
Compare Kittel, TWNT, II, p. 236, under δοκέω.
Lest by any means I should.… The meaning of μή πως, meanwhile is not very clear. Instead of the indicative ἔδραμον, one would expect a subjunctive. This indicative makes it uncertain, too, how τρέχω should be construed, whether as an indicative or subjunctive. Some, consequently, want to interpret the μή πως not as a final predication, but as introduction to an indirect question, the answer to which is to be negative: I laid the Gospel before them (together with the question) whether in their judgment I had been running in vain (cf. for this use, 1 Thess. 3:5). Such an interpretation would also give a clearer expression to Paul’s independence as compared with the others. On such a basis, one must presumably ascribe the use of the indicative to the less discriminating practice of the Koine. The bearing of the final clause, then, must be viewed from the vantage point of those to whom Paul put the question.
τρέχω: to run hard as in a race (cf. Phil. 2:16).
Ἕλλην need not imply that he was a Greek by nationality, but only that he came from a non-Jewish, pagan sphere of life which, in those days, found in the Greek language its general means of communication (cf. Mark 7:26).
For this reason, and not first of all because of his Gentile descent, the ἀλλʼ οὐδέ, but not even, is used. Certainly not the fact that he was a Greek could have obligated him more than others to be circumcised, but the fact that, together with Paul (ὁ σὺν ἐμοί), he had to go to Jewish Christians.
Presumably verse 4 is to be taken together with verse 3, and to be regarded as an appositive amplifier in which it is said that although Titus was not compelled to submit to circumcision by the leading figures at Jerusalem, there nevertheless were persons in Jerusalem who demanded it. That is Explanation One. There is another view, which, for purposes of reference, can be called Explanation Two. If we prefer not to connect verse 4 with verse 3, that is, to regard verse 3 as a new predication, we must interpret it as an anacoluthon. We must then surmise that, hard upon the beginning of verse 4, a verb should be understood, such as: there was conflict or I had to be on my guard, presumably in logical connection with verse 2, but that owing to the relative οἷς, the sentence took another turn and was not completed. All this, of course, holds only if the rendering οἷς οὐδέ of verse 5 is original. Most manuscripts have it. In one, however, the words are omitted. The translation, then, would be: because of the false brethren … we gave ground for a moment (in going to Jerusalem, that is; so, e.g., Th. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, 1922, p. 89 ff.). In some manuscripts, too, only the οἷς is missing. That makes for the translation: but for the sake of the false brethren we did not give ground for a moment. Finally there are some indications which point to a rendering without the οὐδέ. That gives the result: but because of the false brethren (we (or, Titus?) had to give way), for the sake of whom we yielded for a time. All of these later readings have weak textual support. Apparently a certain confusion arose because of the difficult syntactical construction offered by the text we are following. So regarded, the omission of οἷς can easily be explained: it makes for no essential change in the sentence. It is more difficult to explain the absence of οὐδέ, however, for the absence of this word reverses the sense of the passage. In its absence, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than that Titus did submit to circumcision (Zahn’s interpretation seems forced). And that would be in conflict with the whole bearing of the contention. Irrespective, therefore, of how this interpretation arose, it is by virtue both of the weak textual support and of its unreasonableness, unacceptable to us.
Finally the question still remains whether the δέ of verse 4 is original. Marcion omitted it, apparently to avoid an about-face over against verse 3. It can, however, also be taken with transitional force. See the translation, and see Explanation One. To regard it as an adversative is to construe verse 4 as an anacoluthon. See Explanation Two. The δέ is textually firmly verified.
παρείσακτος: only here in the New Testament is the meaning: stole into.
Compare the present: ἔχομεν.
Compare Footnote 13.
ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου can be translated formally as “the true gospel” (so, e.g., Oepke); others translate: in order that the gospel might preserve its truth, that is, its validity (so Bultmann, TWNT, I, p. 242). As we see it, the major referent here is the truth as the content of the gospel.
The opponents of the South Galatian hypothesis say that we need not infer from πρὸς ὑμᾶς that Paul had the church of Galatia in mind; ὑμᾶς, is then taken in an ideal, not in a personal sense: You Gentiles. Even though the with you which is used here cannot be taken as proof positive that the apostle knew the churches of Galatia already when he was still in Jerusalem, and he must therefore have visited them on his first missionary journey (in the province of Galatia), still, the explanation of πρὸς ὑμᾶς διαμείνῃ from the South Galatian point of view is the more natural one. πρὸς ὑμᾶς, more than πρὸς ὑμῖν, stresses the generally objective in distinction from the local. Thence the force: that the truth in its bearing on you might continue.
As we see it, this passage is a true anacoluthon. Some have tried to avoid construing it as such by making the τῶν δοκούντων independent (as in verse 2) and by making the εἶναι τι subordinate to οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει. The translation would then read: but it maketh no matter to me to be somewhat in the estimation of those who were of repute. But the expression εἶναι τι ἀπό τινος does not thus occur. Nor does the context suggest any wish on Paul’s part to separate himself from the leaders at Jerusalem so brusquely as not to care at all about their estimate of him.
Others construe the ἦσαν as referring to the period of time involved in the transactions, and interpret the ποτέ not as a temporal modifier but as a generalizing addendum to the ὁποῖοι as in the Latin cumque (in this connection, therefore: qualescumque). However, such a construction does not occur in the New Testament.
The expression is Hebraic. It is used several times in reference to God (cf. Deut. 10:17). As used here also the expression has something of an appeal to what is written in it. The word that gets the stress is πρόσωπον: God does not judge by the countenance, by externalities. Judging by appearances is something regularly regarded as illegitimate in judgment at law (cf. Lev. 19:15). Paul has conducted his affairs in full consciousness of the fact that God would require an accounting of his deeds.
To judge from its conclusion, we can say that the clause should have ended somewhat as follows: οὐδέν μοι προσανετέθη or οὐδὲν παρελαβόμην.
The γάρ explains nothing here; it seems to be used solely to confirm the unexpressed thought of the anacoluthon.
The general tendency is to translate the word in harmony with 1:16: to submit for consideration, to confer with. Some go on to suggest that Paul had indeed called for a decision, but they, from their side, did not care for advice from him (so Zahn, op. cit., and Behm, TWNT, I, pp. 355–356). This explanation does not suit the context at all. See for the translation and exposition used above in the text, e.g., H. Lietzmann, An die Galater, 2nd. edit., 1923, p. 12 and Oepke, op. cit.
See for the usage elsewhere Oepke, op. cit., pp. 37–38.
There we read of πλέον ἐπιτιθεσθαι βάρος.
This positive element is introduced by ἀλλὰ τουναντίον, which must, in turn, be connected with δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν of verse 9, not with ἰδόντες.
τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, like τῆς περιτομῆς must be taken as an objective genitive.
We are to think presumably of the preaching among still unconverted Jews in and outside of the city of Jerusalem.
ἐνεργήσας … ἐνήργησεν: in order to make the same divine influence manifest. In the first instance it is construed with the dative commodi (Πέτρῳ), in the second with εἰς. Hence the thought is aimed not so much at the internal essence as at the effect of the divine power.
Important in this connection, too, is the absence of the article before ἀποστολήν. Hence every hint that Peter should be in possession of the true apostolate in distinction from the other apostles is carefully avoided.
Some of the texts, however, have Πέτρος here also, presumably at the suggestion of verses 7 and 8.
Compare also the following ἵνα. Δεξιὰ or δεξιαί can also simply mean treaty, or compact, because an exchange of right hands signified such. For proof-passages, see e.g., Grundmann, TWNT, II, pp. 37–38, under δεξιός. Important, further, is the use of the third person ἔδωκαν, from which it is evident that the initiative was taken by the three.
Compare the αὐτὸ τοῦτο.
Some argue that the ἐσπούδασα must be taken to refer to what Paul was zealous to do at the apostolic conference, and that it thus constitutes an argument for the view that this conference coincided with Paul’s visit to Jerusalem reported in Acts 11:29 ff. This assumption is unacceptable. The verb connotes an arduous exertion to which the apostle had to reconcile himself, and it seems unlikely that such ardor would be connected with the transfer of already collected funds. Then too the second clause would take away something of the rich significance of the visit introduced by ἵνα. The tense of the μνημονεύωμεν also suggests something permanent. And it is that permanent effort for the sake of the poor that the apostle is here confirming.
Compare Oepke, op. cit., p. 49 ff.
κατὰ πρόσωπον.
ἔμπροσθεν πάντων.
κατεγνωσμένος: literally condemned, guilty; also translated: to be condemned, reprehensible.
Such is the meaning of ἐθνῶν.
As is evident from the imperfect tense.
Presumably the ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου goes with the τινες, and not with the ἐλθεῖν.
ὑποστέλλειν: to retire.
τῇ ὑποκρίσει: in or through.
ἡ ἀληθεία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (compare the Exposition of verse 5). The ὀρθοποδεῖν used here occurs at no other point in the New Testament. ὀρθοποδοῦς: “on solid footing.” The verb in this connection means about the same as: not wavering between two motives, resolutely heading for something, πρός constitutes the reference line, or point, according to which one can direct or orient himself.
ἐθνικῶς and Ἰουδαϊκῶς are here used in reference to the law.
ἀναγκάζεις: de conatu.
ἡμεῖς: with special emphasis.
Compare also Rengstorf, TWNT, I, p. 332, 329.
εἰδότες.
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, without articles; hence qualitative. One can interpret the genitive as the works “demanded by the law” or as the works “accomplished by the law.”
ἐὰν μή really means “save,” or “except,” and announces an exception. Here, however, it must be interpreted as an absolute (not merely as a partial) contrast to the preceding. The ASV has only but.
The διὰ πίστεως is interchangeable with ἐκ πίστεως: verse 16b (cf. Rom. 3:26, 30, 5:1, Gal. 3:8, 11, 24, and 5:5). It is also interchangeable with πίστει (Rom. 3:28), and with ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (Phil. 3:9), but at no point with διὰ πίστιν. Faith is not presented as the ground for justification.
καὶ ἡμεῖς.
ἐπιστεύσαμεν: ingressive aorist.
οὐ … πᾶσα σαρξ. οὐ … πᾶσα is Hebraic (cf. Mt. 24:22); σάρξ designates in the most general possible way the human, creaturely life. Elsewhere it sometimes pregnantly designates the sinful human nature (cf. 5:16 ff.). In this usage, the σάρξ lacks that pregnant significance, although undoubtedly the thought that all men are sinners also lies at the basis of the whole statement.
εἰ—: siquidem. It introduces, not a contrary to fact, nor a potential, but a condition of fact (cf. e.g., Col. 3:1).
Inasmuch as or because (ζητοῦντες) we seek to be justified in Christ. The “seeking” does not suggest that we are unsure of the success, but points rather to the desire and the hope of the believers. ἐν Χριστῷ now clearly indicates that the justification of the believers takes place in Christ. The point is not only that He constitutes the ground of the justification: He is also the person in whom as Head of the covenant the act of justification takes place.
ἄρα is a concluding adverb. It can also, however, be taken as an interrogative particle, and so be left untranslated (cf. the translation); however, we cannot be sure whether this use occurs elsewhere in Paul’s writings. Whether or not we are dealing here with a question is not, of course, in dispute.
μὴ γένοιτο is the equivalent of the Hebrew חלילה לי
The words καταλύειν and οἰκοδομεῖν are words derived from the work of building (cf. Mark 14:58). The reference of the predication is not to the law itself: for this use of καταλύειν one may compare Mt. 5:17. οἰκοδομεῖν can hardly take the law as its object. Concerning justification, which rests on the law, it can be said, however, that it is broken down and built up, when conceived of as the ground of salvation.
πάλιν: that is, as he had before, when he did not yet live out of faith.
The clause introduced by εἰ announces a potential this time, precisely because Paul is not now speaking for himself, but in using the first person has others (Peter, the Galatians) in mind.
The συνιστάνω with the double accusative is difficult to translate: to constitute someone something; with the ἐμαυτόν it becomes: to prove oneself something or someone, or, really, to recommend or present oneself as such.
Others see in verse 18 a more specific illumination of the question asked in verse 17, and they put this verse also, so to speak, in the mouth of Peter and the other legalistic Christians. The logical context would then run as follows: “Do you suppose that when we seek our justification in Christ, Christ is a minister of sin? Surely that is a thought that must be entirely repudiated. Still you seem attracted to the idea, for when you now again build up what you first broke down, you obviously repudiate your first course of action.” As we see it, this interpretation is hardly plausible in view of the position of μὴ γένοιτο. After these words, one no longer expects in verse 18 a further explanation of the question asked in 17a; what one expects, rather, is an explanation of its rejection as demanded by 17b.
This ἐγώ is also to be regarded as representative, not as individually specified.
The νόμῳ is to be taken as a dative incommodi, just as Θεῷ clearly is a dative commodi (cf. 2 Cor. 5:15 and Rom. 6:11).
Compare also Gutbrod, TWNT, IV, p. 1067.
According to Nestle’s arrangement of verses, the words Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι still belong to verse 19.