¹ With due respect to differing emphases, cf. e.g. Lightfoot, J. B., The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865) 63, 66;Google ScholarSieffert, F., Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK 7; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899) 17;Google ScholarBurton, E. D., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921) liv–lv, lxxi, 35;Google ScholarSchlier, H., Der Brief an die Galater (MeyerK 7; 14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 21–2, 64;Google ScholarMußner, F., Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; 4th ed.; Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1981) 12–14, 62, 70Google Scholar; Bruce, F. F., Commentary on Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 38;Google ScholarLüdemann, G., Paulus, der Heidenapostel (FRLANT 123 and 130; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980/83) 2.144–52.Google Scholar Some writers, however, contest the assumption that Paul replies to charges from his opponents, but view the crucial issue nonetheless as a matter of apostolic authority or legitimacy: e.g. Oepke, A. (Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater [rev. J. Rohde; THKNT 9; 3rd ed.; Berlin: Evan-gelische, 1973] 70–1)Google Scholar and Schütz, J. H. (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority [SNTSMS 26; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975] 127–8).Google Scholar

² The problem has been especially well laid out by Schmithals, W., ‘Die Häretiker in Galatien’, Paulus und die Gnostiker (ThF 35; Hamburg: Reich, 1965) 16–17.Google Scholar Schmithals' own hypothesis of a gnostic background to the alleged charges against Paul finds, however, little support in the epistle.

³ A rejection of the traditional approach to Paul's narrative may likewise be found in two recent writers, Lyons, G. (Pauline Autobiography: Towards an Understanding [SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985])Google Scholar and Gaventa, B. R. (‘Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm’, NovT 28 [1986] 309–26)Google Scholar, who claim to have found an ‘imitation-of-Paul’ motif in the autobiographical references. Yet the details of the narrative refute this claim. Paul makes no effort to avoid emphasizing his special apostolic role which removes him from his readership (1.12, 15–16; 2.4–5, 7–9), nor is it at all clear, assuming such a paradigmatic dimension, why Paul should make his geographical distance from Palestine such a dominant factor in his argument. Lategan, B. (‘Is Paul Defending His Apostleship in Galatians?’, NTS 34 [1988] 411–30)CrossRefGoogle Scholar desires to distance himself from the ‘paradigm’ view, and proposes that the narrative be understood as ‘case studies’ to illustrate the premise of Gal 1.11–12. It does not appear, however, that Lategan has thus succeeded in explaining the central role which Paul's relationship with the Jewish Christian community plays in the narrative plot development. On that topic he wastes no ink.

⁴ E.g. E. D. Burton, Galatians, 43–4; Lietzmann, H., An die Galater (HNT 10; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1923) 6;Google Scholar H. Schlier, Galater, 49; A. Oepke, Galater, 55; F. Mußner, Galater, 78; Betz, H. D., Galatians (Hermeneia;Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 66 n. 101;Google Scholar G. Lüdemann, Paulus, 1.73. But note Suhl, A., Paulus und seine Briefe: Ein Beitrag zur paulinischen Chronologie (StNT 11; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975) 35–6.Google Scholar

⁵ Eὺδοκεν emphasizes the sovereignty of God's choice (cf. Luke 12.32; 1 Cor 1.21; Col 1.19; Ps 39.14; 67.17; see H. Schlier, Galater, 53; Schrenk, G., ‘εὺδοκέω’, TWNT 2 [1935] 736–40)Google Scholar, while the participial constructions further underscore the mystery of God's election love in deliberate contrast to Paul's past (vv. 13–14). The emphasis in vv. 15–16a on the role of divine sovereignty in Paul's conversion and calling thus does not contrast with human contribution in the sense of v. 12, i.e. ‘receiving the gospel from men’ (so F. Sieffert, Galater, 60–1; E. D. Burton, Galatians, 49), but stands over against Paul's own intransigence (vv. 13–14). In the Galatian context Paul's accentuation of the divine will would have had the effect of removing his call from human questioning.

⁶ Eὺθέως cannot be seen only in relationship to v. 16b (so H. Schlier, Galater, 57), for 1) it demands a positive statement (E. D. Burton, Galatians, 53–4), and 2) it must extend at least to the οὺδἐ ἀνλθον of v. 17a over against the ἔπειτα μετὰ τρία ἔτη ἀνλθον of v. 18. It appears that the denial of v. 16b is first limited by 2.1 while that of v. 17a restricted already by v. 18.

⁷ On προσανατίθαί τινι see Zahn, T., Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (KNT 9; Leipzig: Deichert, 1905) 64 n. 72;Google ScholarDunn, J. D. G., ‘The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2’, NTS 28 (1982) 462–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Lipsius, R. A., Briefe an die Galater, Römer, Philipper (HC 2/2; 2nd ed.; Freiburg i.B.: Mohr, 1892) 20.Google Scholar

⁹ H. Schlier, Galater, 58.

¹⁰ On ίστορσαι see Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Galatians 1,18: ίστορσαι Κηφν’, New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson (ed. Higgins, A. J. B.; Manchester: Manchester University, 1979) 144–9;Google Scholar J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Relationship’, 463–6. Note esp. Bauern-feind, O., ‘Die Begegnung zwischen Paulus und Kephas Gal 1:18–20’, ZNW 47 (1956) 272:Google Scholar ‘ein damaliger doch als höchst kritisch vorzustellender Leser … konnte das ἱστορσαι schon gar nicht als eine Begründung für das οῠτε ἐδιδάχθην v. 12 verstehen, etwa in dem Sinne: “da ich nichts weiter als ein ίστορσαι beabsichtigte, kann es zu einem διδαχθναι nicht gekommen sein”.’ Nor can one legitimately suppose that Paul intended the ίστορσαι to be concessive, excluding the idea of instruction first in v. 18b (e.g. H. Schlier, Galater, 60: ‘Er schließt … durch die Kürze der Zeit einen Unterricht, der für die Verkündigung des paulinischen Evangeliums von Einfluß gewesen wäre, aus.’). Were that the case, one would have expected a contrast between v. 18a and v. 18b (e.g. δέ … μόνον); a contrast, however, occurs only between v. 18 and v. 19.

¹¹ Paul's oath appears to reach further back than the immediately preceding statement of v. 19 (ἅ γράφω): so, e.g. E. D. Burton, Galatians, 61; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 79 n. 216.

¹² ‘Iουδαία in Pauline literature: Rom 15.31; 2 Cor 1.16; 2 Thess 2.14. It is impossible to judge for certain whether Paul refers to the Roman province of Judea, or in the narrower sense, to the territory south of Samaria. The context, however, appears to favour the conclusion that the term indicates simply the land inhabited by the Jews, the homeland (cf. e.g. Philo Leg. Gai. 215, 281).

¹³ The alternative explanation of the narrative structure offered e.g. by F. Sieffert (Galater, 93) and A. Oepke (Galater, 74), which divides between the results of the public hearing (vv. 3–5) and those of the private negotiations with the ‘men of reputation’ (vv. 6–10) fails 1) to recognize the contrastive relationship between vv. 6–10 and vv. 4–5, and 2) to account for the argumentative force of v. 3 in the Galatian context. By erroneously isolating vv. 3–5 as a narrative unit, the report of Paul's encounter reaches its climax with Paul's resistance in v. 5, rather than with the triumphant citation of Jerusalem's acceptance in v. 3. The inclusio, συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Tίτον … ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Tίοδ κτλ., plus the dramatic weight of v. 3 following the μή πως clause, count decisively against this proposal.

¹⁴ So e.g. J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 103; E. D. Burton, Galatians, 70; F. Mußner, Galater, 104.

¹⁵ As suggested by F. F. Bruce (Galatians, 109), H. Schlier (Galater, 66–7), and Fung, R. (The Epistle to the Galatians [NIC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988] 87–9).Google Scholar In the case of such an epexegetic clarification, it was Paul's usual habit to repeat the word limited by the additional phrase: cf. Rom 3.22; 9.30; 1 Cor 1.16; 2.6; Phil 2.8; Gal 2.2a. If Paul had intended the δέ clause to clarify αὐτος what could have been his purpose in expressing himself so awkwardly rather than having simply written καὶ ἀνεθέμην τος δοκοσιν τò εὐαγγέλιον (E. D. Burton, Galatians, 71)?

¹⁶ That is, Paul's emphasis does not lie upon reporting two separate meetings, first in plenum and then privately with the leaders, for in that case one would have expected κοιν or ἐν κοιν in v. 2b and a καί connective in v. 2c (cf. Josephus J.W. 2.10.5 §199); rather, v. 2c specifies a private meeting with the leaders which completes the encounter comprehensively described in v. 2b, thereby specifically attesting to the particular involvement of the ‘influential men’, i.e. it was not done in a corner.

¹⁷ See the parallels listed in H. D. Betz, Galatians, 86–7.

¹⁸ E. D. Burton, Galatians, 75. Note: ἀλλά does not introduce an additional point, but rather contrasts clearly with the apprehension expressed in the μή πως of v. 2c, while the intensive character of οὐδέ (‘not even’) applies to Titus as test case: ‘οὐδὲ Tίτος geschweige denn die Gesamtheit der Heidenchristen’ (H. Lietzmann, Galater, 10).

¹⁹ With some slight differences: H. Lietzmann, Galater, 10; H. Schlier, Galater, 70; A. Oepke, Galater, 76.

²⁰ Note the excellent discussion of ellipses in Ljungvik, H., ‘Aus der Sprache des Neuen Testaments’, Eranos 66 (1968) 24–36.Google Scholar Ljungvik's own suggestion regarding this passage is to read the διά phrase of v. 4 as a protasis and then to supply ἠναγκάσθη ἂν περιτμηθναι in an ‘unreal’ sense from the preceding. E. D. Burton (Galatians, 81) rightly supplies ‘the thought of unsuccessful pressure’ from v. 3, but then concludes without warrant that the Jerusalem apostles were the source of the pressure – an hypothesis running counter to the clear contrast contained in the δέ of v. 6.

²¹ Against those who desire to relate δέ to some earlier advantage of the δοκοντες such as the association with the earthly Jesus (e.g. E. D. Burton, Galatians, 87; Barrett, C. K., ‘Paul and the “Pillar” Apostles’, Studio, Paulina [FS J. de Zwaan; Haarlem: Bohn, 1953] 19 n. 1)Google Scholar, one must object 1) following οί δοκοντες εἶναί τι, the qualitative όποοι refers more naturally to the standing of the leaders than to their previous association, and 2) the earlier experience of even the three ‘pillars’ hardly allows itself to be reduced to a single common denominator expressible in terms of quality, let alone that of a wider circle such as described by the general term, ‘men of eminence’, which cannot automatically be equated with ‘apostles’. The view of Becker, J. (Der Brief an die Galater [NTD 8; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981] 24)Google Scholar that Paul relativizes the previous Torah piety of the Jerusalem leaders cannot for its part be harmonized with πρόσωπον ό θεòς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμ-βάνει.

²² So H. Lietzmann, Galater, 12; A. Oepke, Galater, 78; F. Mußner, Galater, 114; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 94–5. On the tense of σαν see also Hasler, B., ‘Sprachlich-grammatische Bemerkungen zu Gal 2,6’, TLZ 82 (1957) 393–4.Google Scholar

²³ Although the greater part of the references in Jewish literature to God's judgment without respect of persons aim simply at enhancing the fear of God's wrath (cf. 1 Enoch 63.8; Sir 35.12–13; Jub. 21.4; T. Job 43.13; m. Abot 4.22), some indication exists that this was at times brought into connection with God's election of Israel. Thus periods of national disaster could be explained by God's impartiality (Pss. Sol. 2.18; 2 Apoc. Bar. 13.8; 44.4), or the violation of the Torah covenant by the individual Jew could result in ‘death’ (Jub. 33.18 cf. 5.16–18). Cf., however, b.Ber. 20b.

²⁴ A Oepke, Galater, 79; Balz, H., ‘προσανατίθεμαι’, EWNT 2 (1981) 390–1.Google Scholar For the alternative meaning, ‘to submit something to my consideration or judgment’ see Behm, J., ‘ἀνατίθημι’, TWNT 1 (1933) 355–6.Google Scholar In either case 1) the connection with 1.16 (προσανατίθεσ-θαι) and 2.2 (ἀνατίθεσθαι) cannot be ignored, and 2) the idea of ‘additional’ is contained in the context, if not in the word.

²⁵ Tοὐναντίον indicates the ascensive force of ἀλλά following the negative: cf. 1 Pet 3.9.

²⁶ For ancient parallels see H. D. Betz, Galatians, 100 n. 409 and 411, as well as Wettstein, J. J., 'H Kαινὴ Διαθήκη (Amsterdam: Dommeriana, 1752) 2.220–1.Google Scholar

²⁷ For the genitive, cf. Josephus J.W. 4.2.2 §96 and Livy 1.1.8. On κοινωνίας in Gal 2.9, note H. Lietzmann, Galater, 13: ‘Sie bekräftigen durch Handschlag, daß sie uns als κοινω-νοί Χριστο and ἐν Χριστ anerkannten.’ Similarly, Seesemann, H., Der Begriff KOINΩNIA im Neuen Testament (BZNW 14; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933) 86–7;Google ScholarHainz, J., ‘Gemein-schaft (κοιωνίa) zwischen Paulus und Jerusalem (Gal 2,9f)’, Kontinuität und Einheit (FS Mußner, F.; ed. Müller, P.-G. and Stenger, W.; Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1981) 38–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ The ἴνα-clause in v. 9c cannot be adequately understood as defining the content of the agreement (as e.g. H. Schlier, Galater, 79), since the emphasis in vv. 7–10 lies upon the δεξιὰς … κοινωνίας and not the separation of mission effort as that which surpasses the οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο of v. 6. The wish to see v. 10 as an exception to the negative statement of v. 6c rather than as parallel to v. 9c (as e.g. H. Lietzmann, Galater, 13) is thwarted by 1) the distance from v. 6c, 2) the absolute character of the denial in v. 6, along with its primary reference to Torah observance to which v. 10 is unrelated, and 3) the close association in thought between vv. 9c and 10: to the statement of independent efforts (v. 9c) is added the desire for a demonstration of affiliation (v. 10). Thus both v. 9c and v. 10 express the desire or will of the ‘pillars’ in offering the pledge of fellowship.

²⁹ Note the εὶς in v. 9c as opposed to ἐν in Gal 1.16 and 2.2.

³⁰ Against those who would like to end the Antiochian scene abruptly with 2.14 (e.g. Betz, H. D., ‘The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians’, NTS 21 [1975] 367–8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brinsmead, B. H., Galatians – Dialogical Response to Opponents [SBLDS 65; Chico: Scholars, 1982] 51–2)Google Scholar, we must protest that not only does Paul give no real indication to his readers that he is abandoning the Antiochian story in v. 15, but the Pauline remark in 2.14 is, in the words of Bauernfeind, O. (‘Der Schluß der Antiochenischen Paulusrede’, Theologie als Glaubenswagnis [FS K. Heim; Hamburg: Furche, 1954] 68)Google Scholar, ‘sinnlos knapp’ when divorced from the following verses.

³¹ Witness the lack of interest in pursuing the source of the misdeed all the way back to Jerusalem. The ‘men from James’ are not confronted, Peter is.

³² ‘Those from the circumcision’ are to be broadly understood as the Jewish Christian community ‘within’ the Torah covenant from whom Paul has been at pains to distance his mission. Φοβεσθαι does not necessarily indicate that overt pressure was applied, but may merely be an attempt to disparage Peter's behaviour as a cowardly compromise. Attempts to identify οί ἐκ περιτομς in v. 12 with unbelieving Jews (notably B. Reicke, ‘Der geschicht-liche Hintergrund des Apostelkonzils und der Antiochia-Episode, Gal. 2:1–14’, Studia Paulina [FS J. de Zwaan; Haarlem: Bohn, 1953] 177;Google ScholarSchmithals, W., Paulus und Jakobus [FRLANT 85; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963] 54–5)Google Scholar remain unconvincing, since this would necessarily define ύπόκρισις in v. 13 as ‘dissimulation’, which is difficult to harmonize with the seriousness of the charge in v. 14 and the subsequent discourse. Nor can οί ἐκ περιτομς be simply equated with τινας ἀπò Ίακώβου (as F. Mußner, Galater, 141; J. Becker, Galater, 28), for one would have expected in that case merely αὐτούς, esp. in the light of οί λοιποί Ίουδαοι in v. 13.

³³ Cf. Pss. Sol. 4.

³⁴ Dunn, J. D. G. (‘The Incident at Antioch’, JSNT 18 [1983] 31–4)Google Scholar may be correct in his historical assessment that the Gentiles in Antioch were already observing some of the basic food laws and that Peter's action served only to raise the ritual barriers surrounding table-fellowship. Paul, however, ignores this fact in the present context and concentrates wholly on the reality that Gentiles were being denied such fellowship. ‘Es geht nach dem ganzen Bericht um ein scharfes Entweder-Oder, nicht um ein relatives Weniger oder Mehr’ (Holtz, T., ‘Der antiochenische Zwischenfall [Galater 2:11–14]’, NTS 32 [1986] 345).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ See Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Gal 2,14 ὁρθοποδοσιυ’, Neutestamentliche Studien für R. Bultmann (BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1957) 269–74;Google ScholarSpicq, C., Notes de lexicographie néo-testamentaire (OBO 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 2.628–9.Google Scholar Kilpatrick's interpretation of πρός, as ‘to, toward’ in the apparent sense, ‘they were not making progress toward the truth of the gospel’, produces a peculiar understatement in a context where the offenders were accused of betraying the gospel. If πρός must be taken in its primary sense, then as part of the metaphor, so that the goal becomes the standard: see F. Muβner, Galater, 144. Note esp. 1 QH 7.14.

³⁶ Note the present tense together with the fact that, since there was a diversity among devout Jews on the conditions of table-fellowship with Gentiles (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 5.5; t. ʿAbod. Zar. 4.6; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 8a-b), ἐθνικῶς ζν would be an improbable description of simply eating with them. The meaning of the expression as determined by distinction to Ιουδαϊκῶς ζν is therefore to be understood broadly. The degree of Peter's emancipation is, however, no longer discernible.

³⁷ Note J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Incident’, 26–7.

³⁸ Cf. T. Zahn, Galater, 121.

³⁹ V. 15 is thus more closely related to Phil 3.4–7 than to Rom 9.3–4. Against e.g. Wilckens, U., ‘Was heiβt bei Paulus: “Aus Werken des Gesetzes wird kein Mensch gerecht”?’, Rechtfertigung als Freiheit (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974) 88 n. 18:Google Scholar ‘Zweifellos ist das Judesein in Gl 2.15 im Sinne eines heilsgeschichtlichen Vorranges gemeint.’ Wilckens' position creates an (unnecessary) tension with v. 16 as he himself admits: ‘Das Urteil V. 16a lautet ja nicht, daβ der Jude als φύσει Ἰουδαος nicht gerechtfertigt werde, sondern daβ er ἐξ ἔργων νόμον nicht gerechtfertigt werde.’

⁴⁰ Note Lohmeyer, E., ‘Gesetzeswerke’, Probleme paulinischer Theologie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, n.d.) 33–74;Google ScholarTyson, J. B., ‘“Worksof the Law” in Galatians’, JBL 92 (1973) 423–31.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The objection to v. 16 voiced in v. 17 is not that ‘bei solcher Rechtfertigung Sünder gerechtgemacht werden’ (H. Schlier, Galater, 95; so also F. Sieffert, Galater, 150–1), but that justification by faith in Christ nullifies the ‘righteousness’ of the Jew. Cf. Rom 3. 1–8 (esp. Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer [EKK 4/1; 2nd ed.; Zürich: Benziger/ Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987] 162).Google Scholar

⁴² See F. Sieffert, Galater, 149; A. Oepke, Galater, 92; Klein, G., ‘Individualgeschichte und Weltgeschichte bei Paulus’, Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (BEvTh 50; Munich: Kaiser, 1969) 186–90.Google Scholar Against e.g. Bultmann, R. (‘Zur Auslegung von Galater 2:15–18’, Exegetica [ed. Dinkier, E.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1967] 395–7)Google Scholar, who overlooks the clear reference in αὐτοί to v. 15.

⁴³ The phrase έν Χριστ is chosen in view of the christological form of the question in v. 17b.

⁴⁴ Against the view that άμαρτωλοί describes the post-conversion sins of the Jewish Christians who had decided έθνικῶς ζν is: 1) the parallel to καì ήμες έπιστεύσαμεν in v. 16; 2) the past tense of εύρέθημεν and 3) the logic of the question itself, where being a ‘sinner’ must be a necessary consequence of seeking to be justified in Christ; and 4) the usual Pauline sense of άμαρτία. Cf. Lambrecht, J., ‘The Line of Thought in Gal 2:14b-21’, NTS 24 (1978)484–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ The challenge, ἆρα Χρισαòς άμαρτίαςδιάκονος, does not ask if Christ ‘die Zahl der Sünder vermehrt’, i.e. that Christ was the one who made them such (W. G. Kümmel, ‘“Individualgeschichte” und “Weltgeschichte” in Gal 2.15–21’, Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament [FS C. F. D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973] 165;Google Scholar also O. Kuβ, Briefe, 263; F. F. Bruce, Galatians, 141). So understood, the question is reduced to silliness; the simple answer would be: ‘not Christ, but we ourselves are responsible for our status as sinners’. The objection is, rather, that if ‘even we’, the ‘righteous’ (v. 15), were found sinners, then Christ is one who stands on the side of sin, nullifying righteousness and thereby seducing to sin. Εύρεθναι άμαρτωλοί is thus not conceived against the backdrop of God's judgment, but as a conclusion from the act of belief, which consequently stands at issue.

⁴⁶ The γαρ connective, thus, does not explain the answer in v. 17; it reinforces Paul's emphatic denial by demonstrating the impossibility of the alternative: ‘Let no one be deceived, for …’ The argument may be compared to that of 1 Cor 15.16–17.

⁴⁷ The first person active verb, form emphasizes the decision to believe, which was challenged in v. 17. The plural object is determined by the γαρ of vv. 15–16; the reference is to the decision of v. 16 (the works of the Law which were nullified by belief in Christ) and not to the ‘Scheidewand’ between Jew and Gentile at issue in Antioch (against e.g. Vielhauer, P., ‘Oikodome’, Oikodome [TB 65; Munich: Kaiser, 1979] 84; F. Muβner, Galater, 178–9).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ To see the ‘rebuilding’ as a reference to the behaviour of Peter and the other Jewish Christians in Antioch either unbalances v. 18, destroying the symmetry between ‘tearing down’ and ‘rebuilding’, or it does violence to the connection with v. 17. If the ‘tearing down’ is a necessary result of belief, the ‘rebuilding’ cannot coexist with belief. There is no middle ground in Paul's representation.

⁴⁹ The objection that συνιστάνειν denotes ‘to show, demonstrate what one already is’ as opposed to what one will from now on become (F. Sieffert, Galater, 152; A. Oepke, Galater, 94; Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 259 n. 159)Google Scholar does not proverelevant, for παραβάτης, describes an original state to which one has returned (πάλιν), rather than an inevitable result.

⁵⁰ Given the reference of παραβάτης, in v. 18 to status before the Law, a direct connection with this thought would have required an adversative δέ. Nor can it be supposed that the linkage is directly to the μὴ γένοιτο of v. 17, for the ‘objector’, who protests the faith decision from a positive perspective on the value of the Law-service, would scarcely have been satisfied with the mere ‘solution’ that άμαρτία is no longer defined by the Law.

⁵¹ In view of his typical usage and the reflection on the work of Christ in the immediately preceding verses, it is extremely unlikely that Paul suddenly concedes the term χάριν το θεο to his opponents (against e.g. E. D. Burton, Galatians, 140; H. D. Betz, Galatians, 126). Note esp. the material correspondence between άθετεν and δωρεάν. On the other hand, the lack of an emphatic personal pronoun makes it similarly improbable that Paul wishes to lodge an accusation against Peter and his cohorts by implying that they were the ones who ‘nullified’ the grace of God.

⁵² So e.g. J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 119–20.

⁵³ Fridrichsen, A., ‘Die Apologie des Paulus Gal. 1’, Paulus und die Urgemeinde (Gie-βen: Töpehnann, 1921) 64 n. 1.Google Scholar