Galatians 2:18Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Look at Paul's prudence. The Jews wished to show that one who does not observe the Law is a transgressor. But he says the complete opposite.

He shows that one who fulfills the Law is a transgressor, and not only of faith, but of the Law itself. For by the words "I build again what I destroyed," he means the Law.

His words have this meaning: "The Law has lost its force, and we confirmed this by leaving it and fleeing to salvation by faith.

"Therefore, if we strive to restore the Law, by this very thing we become transgressors, since we stubbornly wish to observe what has been abolished by God Himself." Then he also shows how the Law was abolished.

Observe his wisdom. They said that one who violates the Law is a transgressor. He, on the contrary, shows that one who keeps it is a transgressor, going not only against faith, but against the Law itself. For the Law itself brought me to faith and persuaded me to leave it. He will show this later. For now he says that the Law has ceased. We testified to this by tearing it down when we withdrew from it. Therefore, if we were to strive to build it up again, we would be shown to be transgressors, restoring what God has destroyed.

[...] so says the Apostle. If someone from the Hebrews or Gentiles accepts Christianity and then, within Christianity, still performs pagan or Jewish rites, what follows?

For example, if he observes them in folk festivals, or preserves the traditions and superstitions of his former faith, and under their influence sins as before, is anyone else guilty except the sinning Christian himself?

Is faith in Christ guilty or powerless in us if, after cleansing our soul each year by repentance and sanctifying it by Holy Communion of the Body of Christ, we again lead our former foolish and sinful life?

No. We make ourselves transgressors, more responsible than one who has not known the faith of Christ. If we have given a vow of fidelity to Christ, let us value it and not violate it.

This is how the holy Apostle Paul strove to act.

For if what I have destroyed and practiced thus until the present time I again begin today and afterward to build up, then in this way I show myself a transgressor of the commandment. I return to the observance of what I had not completely destroyed.

"For if I build again what I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." By the works of the Law that flesh is not justified, or is not being justified, of which it is written: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory is like the flower of the field" (Isa 40:6).

But by faith in Christ that flesh is justified of which it is said in the mystery of the resurrection: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Lk 3:6).

Even according to the lower, humiliorem, understanding, not all flesh was once justified through fulfillment of the Law, but only those people who were in Palestine.

Now, however, every flesh is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, because His Church is founded throughout the whole world.

The Apostle said this not about himself alone, but about all the apostles. For they too judged it good that those who believed from the Gentiles should not keep the Law. But, the Apostle says, we plainly violate what we ourselves judged good, demolishing what we ourselves built. We built up the Gentiles not on the foundation of the Law, but on the foundation of Christ. He refuted the accusation with great wisdom. For when others called nonobservance of the Law a transgression, he called observance of the Law a transgression. Then he shows this more clearly.

The proof proceeds from an incompatible conclusion. If we, he says, who seek justification and holiness not from the works of the Law but from faith in Christ, thereby become sinners, what follows?

Does it not follow from this that Christ is a minister of sin, that is, the producer and cause of sin? "May it not be." Away with this incompatibility.

Do you see how, by this most dreadful incompatibility, he proves that man is justified not by legal works but by faith in Christ? He increases the force of the proof still further, saying that if I build again what I abolished, I become a transgressor.

That is, I become guilty and sinful. What, then, was abolished by him? The works of the Law were abolished not only by him, although he speaks in his own person.

"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Another necessary and sorrowful conclusion from returning to the Law of Moses is this: Christians would have to acknowledge themselves guilty of transgressing that Law. For they confessed it insufficient for salvation and began to seek justification in Christ. Even more, they would have to become transgressors of the Law because the Law itself commands them to turn to Christ. Christians, instead, would be turning back to the Law. The Apostle's final thought is that one must renounce the Law by the Law's own demand. This rests on the fact that the Law's purpose was only to prepare for Christ, and to become superfluous when He appeared.

Thirdly, to dispose the Gentiles toward Old Testament rites means openly to proclaim one's own transgression. "For," Saint Paul teaches, "if I again build up what I destroyed," that is, the Old Testament ritual order abolished at the council of Jerusalem, "I make myself a transgressor." It is as though I were admitting that I destroyed something that should never have been destroyed.

Although the Apostle's thought about falling into sin is expressed generally, it undoubtedly has its nearest relation to the circumstance previously under discussion. This is the wavering relation to the Law of Moses and to Christ.

Saint John Chrysostom says on this matter, "If faith in Christ cannot justify, and the Law is again necessary, then we left the Law for Christ and do not receive justification through this leaving.

"Instead, being subject to condemnation, we must acknowledge as the cause of our condemnation Him to whom we passed when we left the Law.

"Attend to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel. If fulfillment of the Law is necessary, then one must necessarily renounce Christ.

He explains how they turned out to be sinners when, after leaving the Law, they returned to it again, using an example from everyday life.

Here no one will demolish a building at random, but only after being convinced that it is unnecessary. Yet if the same man, after demolishing the building, begins again to build it in the same form, he exposes himself.

He shows that he acted badly in demolishing it and became a transgressor against ordinary wisdom. So it is with us, Saint Paul seems to say.

By abandoning the Law, we demolished it. By turning to it again, we build it again. If we return to it because we cannot exist without it, then we expose ourselves before all.