What was destroyed in Galatians 2:18?

Question

In Galatians 2:18, Paul writes, "If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker." What is he referring to when he mentions rebuilding what was destroyed and how does that answer the objection that is raised in verse 17?

Answer 1

To understand what Paul is saying here in Galatians 2:17-18 it is helpful to read the context starting from Galatians 2:3-14.

However, to cut to the chase - Paul "destroyed" or "tore down" the idea that a person can be justified by the Abrahamic/Mosaic laws of circumcision/diet.

When Paul states, "...I prove that I am a lawbreaker.", he is saying that if he were to "put back into place" the idea that one can be saved through the works of the law (as Peter was hypocritically suggesting in Gal 2:11-14), then he (Paul) would be amiss.

I don't make a habit out of reading the New Living Translation, but its paraphrase on Gal 2:17-18 may be more helpful to you than the thoughts that I've shared already.

Gal 2:17-18 NLV - But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down.

Answer 2

According to early church interpretation it's the law or the works of the law.¹

---

^{1: Tertullian, adv. Marc., 5,3,8; Eusebius of Emesa, in Gal.; Ephrem, in Gal.; Augustinus, Exp. Gal. 16,7-10; Ambrosiaster; Theodoret of Cyrus}

Answer 3

Keeping the law was never a means of salvation. It came 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant (covenant of faith).

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. Galatians 3:17

For many reasons, I believe what Paul is referring to is sin...the works of the flesh.

Answer 4

Romans 7:13 states "...that sin by the commandment (law) might become exceeding sinful," means the law was given to us to show that we are incapable of keeping God's perfect standard for justification. The law was not given for our justification, but to show us our hopeless condition. Hence, we would look to Him who did not come to condemn the law or the prophets, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17), so that by His merit we who belong to Him would be just as sinless. Humility for our brokenness, not pride in our "goodness" Luke 18:13-14, is what God intends for the law to reveal in us. If one exalts himself in his "law-keeping," he will be abased. Therefore someone who seeks to rebuild (live up to) the system of law for justification, which actually engenders pride not humility, will continue in the transgression described by Galatians 2:18, and ultimately be abased or rejected.

The law is not evil, but the perfect standard from God by which we should endeavor to live so that our lives will be better and glorify our Creator, but could never buy our forgiveness because we have all broken at least 1 commandment at least 1 time and are therefore without hope, without Christ (James 2:10).

Answer 5

I agree with what Malchiah said. I also don't think that Paul, in these verses and particularly in verse 2:18, is referring to the abolishment of the idea that salvation can be obtained by the works of the Law but rather to demolishing of our carnal life that is implied by taking our cross daily. The verb katalúō (or lúō, which means “to dissolve,” but also “to destroy”) is used in this sense in the New Testament mostly about the temple and the body of Jesus (John 2:21, Matt. 26:61); about the Law Jesus said just the opposite (Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish (katalũsai) the Law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish, but to bring to completion.). The same as the verb oikodoméō, “to build up”: it is used for the temple and the church, but also for the house in the sense of one's life (as in Matthew 7:24-27). Thus, although all the interpretations of the Church Fathers go in a different direction, it can be believed that Paul is speaking not of the Law but of the old man crucified (destroyed) by faith with Christ in view of our justification and salvation. And that he is, in essence, saying, “But if, in seeking justification by faith (i.e., therefore disregarding the set of rules established by the rabbis to ensure fulfillment of the Law) we are found to be sinners, does this mean that Christ is a servant of sin? So be it not! If I return to edify what the cross destroyed (i.e., my life of sin, with my fleshly ambitions and desires), it is I who am a transgressor. For this is not Christ's teaching. Christ's teaching - as the fulfillment of the Law - is that I am dead to the things of this life of sin (as the Law reveals it) in order to live totally for God.” That is, I think it makes sense to think that in these verses Paul is anticipating what he will say later in the Epistle. Christ gives us freedom, but not freedom to sin, rather freedom from sin.