Galatians 2:16

16. The force of the prepositions is obscured by the rendering of A. V. Literally, ‘Knowing that man is not justified from (i.e. as the result of) works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ … even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from (i.e. as the result of) faith in Christ, and not from works of the law; for from works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ In the language of St Paul man is justified from faith, and through faith and by faith (dative without preposition expressed, Rom_3:28), never for or on the score of faith. In Rom_3:30, God is said to justify “the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith”, where the emphasis is not on the prepositions but on faith. This is clear from the fact that whereas in this passage God is said to justify the Jews from faith, in Gal_3:8, He is said to justify the Gentiles from faith, comp. Heb_10:38, and Hab_2:4 LXX. Vers. In Php_3:9, we meet with the expression ‘the righteousness which is of God upon (condition of) faith’.

but by the faith] i.e. but only through faith in Jesus Christ. The rendering of the R.V. ‘save’ is grammatically possible, but logically wrong, and, as a translation, not only incorrect, but misleading. The declaration of St Paul has its counterpart in the utterance of the believing heart—

Nothing in my hand I bring;

Simply to Thy Cross I cling.

A shipwrecked sailor was trying to save his life by swimming, employing one hand for that purpose, while with the other he clutched a bag of provisions which he had rescued from the sinking ship. When his strength was nearly exhausted, a vessel came in sight. He was descried and a rope thrown to him. He seized it with one hand. ‘Lay hold with both hands, or we cannot save you’. He let go the bag of provisions and was hauled safely on board the friendly vessel. His life was saved apart from his provisions. But he found that it could not be maintained without them. See Appendix III. p. 87.

of Jesus Christ] that faith which has Christ Jesus for its object, and nearly = in Jesus Christ. It is explained by the words which follow immediately, “We also ourselves believed in Christ Jesus”. The transposition of the names of our Blessed Lord in this verse is doubtless ‘not arbitrary’, though it is not easy to explain its force. It must be remembered that Proper names which are now mere designations to distinguish one person from another were originally descriptive. To those who thus regarded the name Christ as meaning the Anointed or Messiah, there would be conveyed a different thought according as it preceded or followed the more personal name Jesus. Any one who will read the passage aloud, substituting ‘Messiah’ or ‘the Anointed’ for ‘Christ’, will perceive, if he does not fathom the difference.

even we] Better, we also, as well as Gentile converts.

for by the works … justified] This is a quotation, not quite literal, from Psa_143:2. It is made also in Rom_3:20, being there introduced for a special purpose, as referring to Jews, by the words, “We know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law”. It is here used for a similar purpose, and as a decision from which no appeal was possible. See note on c. Gal_3:22.

no flesh] a Hebraism = no human being.

Note on Ch. Gal_2:16

The Revised Version renders, ‘knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ’, giving in the margin ‘but only’, as an alternative of ‘save’. Alford translates ‘except’. Though a full discussion of the use of the Greek particles here employed is beyond the scope of this work, yet the question involved is of such momentous issues, that the correct rendering of the passage must be not only stated, but maintained. Two particles, of which the literal English equivalent is ‘if not’, occur in combination about 150 times in the New Testament. In the large majority of passages in which they are found, there can be on difference of opinion as to their force or proper translation, viz. ‘if not’, ‘unless’, ‘except’, In a few passages, however, it is impossible to adopt one of these renderings without sacrificing either sense or truth, and reducing the statement to an absurdity. To the instance quoted in the note on ch. Gal_1:19 (Luk_4:26-27, where the A.V. is of course wrong), may be added Mat_12:4, and Rev_21:27, where it is right in rendering ‘but only’ and ‘but’. It may be observed that the question is not whether these particles ever lose their exceptive force (see Bp Lightfoot, note on ch. Gal_1:19, and Prof. Scholefield, Preface to 3rd edition of Sermons on Justification by Faith, pp. 35–37). Nor again is it here necessary to explain the refinements of Greek idiom by reference to the subtleties of Greek thought. The transition from the exceptive, ‘save’, to the exclusive, ‘but only’, is in certain passages undoubted and may be logically deduced. It is clear that for the purposes of correct translation (i.e. if we would convey to an English reader the true sense of the original), we must employ ‘but’, or ‘but only’ in certain passages as the equivalent of particles which are elsewhere rendered by ‘save’ or ‘except’. It remains to determine which is the just rendering in the passage under consideration. Now, if words have any meaning, the R.V. (which is ex hypothesi a correction of the A.V.) teaches what has been termed “a mixed justification by faith and works”, the efficacy of works for justification being conditional on the addition or admixture of faith. This, however, is in direct contradiction of what immediately follows—“we believed Christ that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law”. Had the Apostle allowed works any place as a ground of the justification of a sinner, he would either have omitted the last clause or have written, “and (or, together with) the works of the law”. But this would have been to contradict his plainest assertions in another Epistle. In Rom_3:21 we read, “But now apart from law the righteousness of God has been manifested, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe”; and, Rom_3:28, “We reckon then that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (perhaps, works of law, i.e. acts of obedience to any law, ceremonial or moral)”. Compare Rom_4:4-6. In all these passages St Paul uses an adverb which means ‘apart from’, ‘independently of’, rather than ‘without’. The sinner is justified through faith only, apart from any works of his own. Christ’s fulfilment of the law—His perfect obedience and His atoning death—needs not and admits not any supplement on the part of the sinner to satisfy the righteousness of God. We who believe “are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings”, Art. xi. But though “the works of the law” have absolutely no part in our justification, because the faith through which we are justified is ‘apart from’ them, yet St Paul nowhere asserts that we are justified without works. That would be sheer antinomianism. Good works are “the fruits of faith”, and “by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit”, Art. xii. For a further illustration of St Paul’s teaching on the relation of faith and works, compare Eph_2:8-10, and for his doctrine of justification by faith ‘apart from’ works, Php_3:9.

It is certain then, that the true rendering is, ‘not justified by the works of the law, but (or, but only) through faith in Jesus Christ.’

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.

Christian doctrine of justification

I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among men. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e.g., with an act of trespass on his neighbours property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may either

(1) deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may

(2) admit that the deed was done, and set up, as a defence, that he had a right to do it. In either case, if the point be made out, he will be just, or innocent in the sight of the law. The law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or, he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.

II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God--a charge, in short, of total depravity (see especially Rom_1:1-32; Rom_2:1-29; Rom_3:1-31.). That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt; that it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals, in proof of it, to the history of the world, to every mans conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on His own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, He rests the proof of the charge.

III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from: this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges He has made against him in His Word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the law. The law will not acquit him; it holds him guilty; it condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the case; and he must stand condemned by the law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it can exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the law contemplates.

IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:

1. It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the law, or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavoured constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God, in any such sense that He endeavoured to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.

2. It is not that we either are, or are declared to he, innocent. God justifies the ungodly (Rom_4:5). We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favour of God.

3. It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favour, and not by desert.

4. It is not a declaration on the part of God that we have wrought out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and could not be made.

5. It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to His people. Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as colour does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and He will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification be none of these things, it may be asked, What is it? It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. (Albert Barnes, D. D.)

Justification of sinners

Justification has been defined to be an act of God s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His right; or, to declare judicially the innocence of the person justified (see Deu_25:1; 1Ki_8:32; Mat_12:37; Rom_8:33). The gist of St. Pauls argument with St. Peter is as follows: If thou, being a Jew, livest, as thy usual habit, as a Gentile, how is it that thou art compelling the Gentiles to adopt Jewish customs as necessary to salvation? We truly are by nature Jews, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; we are not only not Gentiles but not even proselytes; we are of pure Jewish descent, and so enjoy the highest spiritual privileges; but yet, since we know that no man is justified by the works of the law, nor in any manner except through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ in order that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; for it is a certain truth, that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Here we have--

I. The absolute exclusion of works from the office of justifying.

1. Heavy charges are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged

(1) with violating the law of God;

(2) with having no love to his Maker;

(3) with possessing a corrupt, proud, unbelieving heart;

(4) with being alienated from God by wicked works.

2. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from these charges.

(1) He cannot show that the things charged have not been committed;

(2) nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He is without excuse.

II. The office of justifying is ascribed to faith only.

1. The principal cause of our justification is the love of God the Father.

2. The meritorious cause is the active and passive obedience, the perfect righteousness and vicarious death, of God the Son.

3. The efficient cause is the operation of God the Holy Ghost.

4. The instrumental cause is faith in Christ. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)

The nature of justification

1. Justification is not the Lords making one who was before unjust to be just by works of habitual and inherent righteousness in him. This is to confound justification with sanctification. But it is a judicial action, whereby God absolves the sinner from death and wrath, and adjudges him to life eternal: for the word expressing this grace here, is a judicial word taken from courts of justice, which being attributed to the judge, is opposed to condemn (Rom_8:33-34), and so signifies to absolve and give sentence.

2. The ground whereupon, and the cause for which sinners are thus justified or absolved from wrath, and adjudged to life eternal, is not any works which they do in obedience to the law of God, whether ceremonial or moral; for works are excluded, and faith alone established.

3. The works which are excluded from having hand in justification, are not only those which are done before conversion, but also which follow after, and flow from the working of Gods Spirit in us: even those works are imperfect (Isa_64:6), and so cannot make us completely righteous; and we do owe them to God in the meantime (Luk_17:10), and so they cannot satisfy Divine justice for faults in time past. They are the work of Gods Spirit in us (Php_2:13), and so we can merit nothing at Gods hand by them: for He excludes the works of the law in general.

4. That, through virtue whereof we are thus justified and absolved by God, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, performed by Himself while He was here on earth, both in doing what we should have done (Mat_3:15), and suffering what we ought to have suffered (Gal_3:15); which righteousness is not inherent in us, but imputed to us (Rom_5:17); as the sum of money paid by the cautioner stands good in law for the debtor, so we are said to be justified by the faith of Christ, or faith in Jesus Christ, as laying hold upon His righteousness, which is imputed to us, and by which alone we are made righteous.

5. Though faith be not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, yet it is the only grace which has influence in our justification.

6. Faith has influence upon our justification, not as it is a work, or because of anyworth which is in itself more than in any other grace, but only as it lays hold on Jesus Christ, and gives us a right to His righteousness, through the merit whereof alone we are justified.

7. This way of justification by free grace accepting of us for the righteousness of Jesus Christ, and not because of our own worth, is common to all who ever were, are, or shall be justified, whether good or bad.

8. Before man be justified through virtue of this imputed righteousness, he must first be convinced of his own utter inability to satisfy Divine justice, and so to be justified by anything he himself can do.

9. He must be convinced also of the value of Christs merits to satisfy Divine justice.

10. Being thus convinced, he must by faith receive and rest upon Jesus Christ and that most perfect righteousness of His, by making his soul adhere and cleave to the word of promise, wherein Christ is offered (Act_2:39; Act_2:41), whereupon follows the real justification and absolution of him who so does. (James Fergusson.)

Self-righteousness destroyed

The squirrel in his wire cage, continually in motion but making no progress, reminds me of my own self-righteous efforts after salvation, but the little creature is never one-half so wearied by his exertions as I was by mine. The poor chiffonier in Paris trying to earn a living by picking dirty rags out of the kennel, succeeds far better than I did in my attempts to obtain comfort by my own works. Dickenss cab-horse, which was only able to stand because it was never taken out of the shafts, was strength and beauty itself compared with my starveling hopes propped up with resolutions and regulations. Wretches condemned to the galleys of the old French kings, whose only reward for incessant toils was the lash of the keeper, were in a more happy plight than I when under legal bondage. Slavery in mines where the sun never shines must be preferable to the miseries of a soul goaded by an awakened conscience to seek salvation by its own merits. Some of the martyrs were shut up in a dungeon called Little-ease; the counterpart of that prison-house I well remember. Iron chains are painful enough, but what is the pain when the iron enters into the soul? Tell us not of the writhings of the wounded and dying on the battle-field; some of us, when our heart was riddled by the artillery of the law, would have counted wounds and death a happy exchange. O blessed Saviour, how blissful was the hour when all this horrid midnight of the soul was changed into the day-dawn of pardoning love! (C. H. Spurgeon.)

On justifying righteousness in connection with true faith

I. The doctrine of justification.

1. Guard here against two errors:

(1) That of those who conceive of justification as originating with the creature instead of the Creator;

(2) That Of those who exclude man, not only from meritorious acting, but from all concern in the reception of the boon.

2. That we may attach distinct ideas to the word, justification, it is necessary for us to consider it in reference to the attributes and revealed will of the Divine Lawgiver.

3. Justification is vouchsafed to rebellious men on precisely the same ground as if they had continued steadfast and immoveable in their allegiance.

4. Justification includes pardon of sin, whether original or actual, and acceptance as righteous. Both are due to the voluntary substitution of the Son of God in our nature, who, by active obedience, fulfilled the law to the uttermost; and by penal suffering redeemed us from its curse.

II. The nature of the faith by which we are justified.

1. Its Divine origin. Like every other good gift, it comes from above; is implanted in the soul by the Holy Spirit, without whose omnipotent agency mankind are never withdrawn from a vain confidence in human deservings.

2. Its appropriating character. In the experience of the true believer, faith must attach itself to Christ as a Redeemer sufficient not only for other sinners, but all-sufficient for him; it must lay hold on His doings and sufferings, as supplying him with a sure ground of confidence.

3. The faith which is connected with justification is inseparably conjoined with all other Christian graces. Grievous mistakes have proceeded in consequence of men putting asunder things which God has joined together in the bonds of sacred union. Thus, faith has been often viewed as a simple act of the understanding conversant with certain doctrines, whilst its relation to the affections of the heart and the virtues of character has been greatly overlooked.

III. The evidences which scripture furnishes of a justified condition.

1. Indications of which we are personally conscious (Act_24:16; 1Ti_1:5; 1Ti_1:19; 1Pe_3:16, etc.).

2. External manifestations which our temper, converse, and ordinary transactions supply (Php_4:8). (John Smyth, D. D.)

Justification and its method

I. The nature of justification. It includes--

1. The pardon of sin (Act_13:38-39; Rom_4:5; Rom_4:8). Thus God remits the penalties of sin. Upon this ground of a moral concurrence in the mind of the sinner with the reasons and intentions of the Redeemers sufferings, God is graciously willing to remit the punishment of sin, in its greatest and most awful inflictions, those which are spiritual and eternal.

2. The enjoyment of the favour of God. Gods declaration of pardon is not in word only, but also in power. It is not a mere judgment in words, but is also a judgment in deeds, i.e., the favour of God to any one shows itself in actual blessing. The possession of this blessing secures a happiness that is pure, perfect, and abiding.

But to guard this doctrine from abuse it is necessary to remember--

1. That it does not mean that Christ has taken the part of the sinner against the law or against God. None ever gave such honour to the law as Christ did.

2. Those who are justified are not thereby declared to be innocent. God justifies the ungodly. Sin remains the same, and although its penalty has been remitted by an act of grace, the pardoned should come before Gad with the most profound humiliation (Eze_16:62-63).

3. Justification depends upon personal trust. God does not save the careless or the unbelieving, or those who cease to confide in Him.

II. The method of justification. To have a complete view of this method we must consider the originating, the meritorious, and the instrumental cause of justification.

1. The originating cause is the love of God (Joh_3:16; Tit_3:4-5).

2. The meritorious cause is the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. His life was absolutely holy. In Him there was no sin. Yet He suffered, as none had ever suffered before; but He suffered for the guilty, the just for the unjust. It is entirely agreeable to the dictates of reason and justice that the perfect righteousness of another (if such could be found) should be available, under a constitution of Divine mercy, to procure the pardon and acceptance as righteous of sinful beings, who are otherwise under an absolute incapacity of obtaining these blessings. It is manifest that all the conditions essential to a Redeemer have been fulfilled by Christ (Rom_3:21; Rom_3:26).

3. The instrumental cause of justification is faith. We are justified by the faith of Christ.

The faith which justifies has been defined as including three distinct but concurrent exertions of the mind.

1. The assent of the understanding to the truth of the testimony of God in the gospel.

2. The consent of the wilt and affections to the plan of salvation; such an approbation and choice of it as imply a renunciation of every other refuge, and a steady and decided adherence to this.

3. Actual trust in the Saviour and personal apprehension of His merits. Faith that justifies is a sincere, active, affectionate receiving and resting upon the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the Lord Jesus Christ as a Divine and complete Saviour. But it must be remembered that faith is not a meritorious condition, but simply that by which the soul embraces Christ and enters into union with him.

Lessons:

1. Justification cannot be attained by any human work. The most highly-privileged have to submit to be saved by grace. The works of the law cannot justify. If obedience to moral rule cannot merit pardon, how much less can ritual or ceremony?

2. Faith in Christ is the only way of salvation of which the gospel speaks; to reject Christ therefore must leave all the burden of sin upon the individual conscience. (R. Nicholls.)

Definition of a Christian

We make this definition of a Christian: that a Christian is not he which hath no sin, but he to whom God imputeth not his sin, through faith in Christ. This doctrine bringeth great consolation to poor afflicted consciences in serious and inward terrors. It is not without good cause, therefore, that we do so often repeat and beat into your minds, the forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteousness for Christs sake: also that a Christian hath nothing to do with the law and sin, especially in the time of temptation. For in that he is a Christian, he is above the law and sin. For he hath Christ the Lord of the law present and enclosed in his heart, even as a ring hath a jewel or precious stone enclosed in it. Therefore, when the law accuseth and sin terrifieth him, he looketh upon Christ, and when he hath apprehended Him by faith, he hath present with him the Conqueror of the law, sin, death, and the devil; who reigneth and ruleth over them, so that they cannot hurt him. Wherefore a Christian man, if ye define him rightly, is free from all laws, and is not subject unto any creature, either within or without: in that he is a Christian, I say, and not in that he is a man or a woman; that is to say, in that he hath his conscience adorned and beautified with this faith, this great and inestimable treasure, this unspeakable gift which cannot be magnified and praised enough, for it maketh us the children and heirs of God. And by this means a Christian is greater than the whole world; for he hath such a gift, such a treasure in his heart, that although it seemeth to be but little, yet notwithstanding the smallness thereof, is greater than heaven and earth, because Christ, which is this gift, is greater. (Luther.)

The Christians righteousness derived from Christ

The righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own … Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in Him. In Him God findeth us, if we be faithful; for by faith we are incorporated into Him. Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man who in himself is impious, full of iniquity, full of sin; him being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin in hatred through repentance; him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putting away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law: shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law! I must take heed what I say: but the apostle saith, God made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Such we are in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself. Let it be counted folly, or frenzy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our wisdom, and our comfort; we care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned, and God hath suffered; that God hath made Himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God. (Richard Hooker.)

Faith alone justifies

Suppose I say, A tree cannot be struck without thunder; that is true: for there is never destructive lightning without thunder. But again, if I say, The tree was struck by lightning without thunder, that is true too, if mean that the lightning alone struck it without the thunder striking it. Yet read the two assertions, and they seem contradictory. So, in the same way, St. Paul says, Faith justifies without works; i.e., faith alone is that which justifies us, not works. But St. James says, Not a faith which is without works. There will be works with faith, as there is thunder with lightning; but just as it is not the thunder, but the lightning (the lightning without the thunder) that strikes the tree: so it is not the works which justify. Put it in one sentence: Faith alone justifies, but not the faith which is alone. Lightning alone strikes, but not the lightning which is alone without thunder, for that is only summer lightning, and harmless. (F. W. Robertson. , M. A.)

Faith unites to Christ

As the graft is kept in union with the stock by means of the clay which has been applied by the gardener, so is the believer united to Christ by faith, which is the gift of God. The clay cement keeps the parts together, but has no virtue in itself: so faith is the means of union with Christ; it shows that the husbandman has been there. When the clay is removed in an ordinary tree, the graft is found united to the stock; so, when faith is swallowed up in sight, then the perfect union of Christ and His people is seen. (J. H. Balfour.)

Faith an instrument

Faith is technically called the instrumental cause of our justification. It is not therefore faith that justifies, but Christ: faith is the hand that grasps Him. The trust of some is in a strong faith, of others in certain frames and feelings; but both of these err in their mode of looking at salvation. In so far as they look not to Christ, in His life and death, as the one only Justifier, they will surely suffer damage to their spiritual life. (J. G. Pilkington.)

Faith a venture

Faith is nothing else but the souls venture It ventures to Christ, in opposition to all legal terrors. It ventures on Christ, in opposition to our guiltiness. It ventures for Christ, in opposition to all difficulties and discouragements. (W. Bridge.)

Justification by faith

Why hath God appointed the eye to see, and not the ear? Why the hand to take our food, rather than the foot? It is easily answered: Because those members have a particular fitness for these functions, and not the other. Thus faith hath a fitness for the work of justification peculiar to itself. We are justified, not by giving anything to God--what we do--but by receiving from God, what Christ hath done for us. Now faith is the only receiving grace, and therefore only fit for this office. (W. Gurnall.)

How faith justifies

Some make works their righteousness; some make faith their righteousness; and they walk in this faith, not in Christ by faith; but it is not faith that saves merely, but Christ received by faith. As it is not the laying on the plaster that heals the sore, but the plaster itself that is laid on; so it is not our faith, or receiving of Christ, but Christ received by faith, that saves us. It is not our looking to the brazen serpent mystical, but the mystical brazen serpent looked upon by faith--Christ received by faith--that saves us. (Erskine.)

The justifying power of faith

Faith is receiving Christ into our emptiness. There is Christ like the conduit in the market-place. As the water flows from the pipes, so does grace continually flow from Him. By faith I bring my empty pitcher and hold it where the water flows, and receive of its fulness grace for grace. It is not the beauty of my pitcher, it is not even its cleanness that quenches my thirst: it is simply holding that pitcher to the place where water flows. Even so I am but the vessel, and my faith is the hand which presents the empty vessel to the flowing stream. Is it not grace, and not the qualification of the receiver which saves the soul? And though I hold that pitcher with a trembling hand, and much of that which I seek may be lost through my weakness, yet if the soul be but held to the fountain, that so much as a single drop trickle into it, my soul is saved. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

No safety in our works

In the twenty-eighth year of the Emperor Tan Kwang, the rise of the river Yangtze was higher than it had been for a hundred years or more. The loss of property was incalculable. Old Doctor Tat, who well remembers the occurrence, gave me the account. Were there many lives lost? I asked. Numbers, said he. It was something like obtaining salvation from sin, he continued. The rich, who had well-built houses, trusted to them, and went to the upper story, thinking themselves safe. But the flood increased. The foundations gave away; and the house to which they trusted, fell and buried them in its ruins, or in a watery grave. But the poor, knowing that their mud-built huts could not stand the rising flood, fled in time to the neighbouring hills; and though they lost all, yet they themselves were saved.

Faith is trusting God

Some time ago I remember reading of an incident that occurred between a prince in a foreign land and one of his subjects. This man for rebellion against the government was going to be executed. He was taken to the guillotine block. When the poor fellow reached the place of execution he was trembling with fear. The prince was present and asked him if he wished anything before judgment was carried out. The culprit replied: A glass of water. It was brought to him, but he was so nervous he couldnt drink it. Do not fear, said the prince to him, judgment will not be carried out till you drink that water, and in an instant the glass was dashed to the ground and broken into a thousand pieces. He took that prince at his word.

Not justified by the works of the law

I. The means of justification here rejected.

II. The means acknowledged and exhibited. Faith--

1. In what.

2. In what sense.

3. To what extent.

Learn:

1. That guilt does not prevent justification.

2. No circumstances constitute an exception to the mode of justification.

3. Justification is within the reach of all who can believe. (S. Martin.)

I. Justification.

1. It includes--

(1) freedom from guilt;

(2) Divine acceptance.

2. It is grounded on obedience to the law--

(1) Personally or

(2) by substitute. The former justifies unfallen angels, the latter by Christ accepted justifies the sinner.

II. The Instrument Of justification--Faith. (J. C. Jones.)

The causes of justification

I. The meritorious cause--Christ.

II. The instrumental cause--Faith. The faith of Christ.

1. The faith which Christ makes possible.

2. The faith which Christ gives.

3. The faith which Christ receives.

4. The faith through which Christ comes.

5. The faith by which Christ works.

6. The faith which Christ will crown.

The works of the law here (Rom_3:20) and elsewhere are undoubtedly the works required generally by the law of the old covenant--not ceremonial as contradistinguished from moral, nor moral as contradistinguished from ceremonial--but whatever of one kind and another it imposed in the form of precept--the law, in short, as a rule of right and wrong laid in its full compass on the consciences of men; but pre-eminently, of course, the law of the Ten Commandments, which lay at the heart of the whole, and was its pervading root and spirit. By deeds of conformity to this law they knew that they could not be justified, because they had not kept it. (Fairbairn.)

The impossibility of justification by the works of the law

Because--

I. Man is flesh.

1. Depraved by natural corruption.

2. Obnoxious by actual transgression.

II. His best obedience is necessarily imperfect.

III. All he does or can do is a due debt owing to the law.

1.

He owes all possible obedience to the law as a creature.

2. But by performing his obligation as a creature he can never pay his debts as a transgressor.

IV. Christ alone is able to justify him. (J. Vaughan.)

The law abolished

The superiority of the Judaic ritual over the heathen arose from its being the shadow of good things to come. But it had now fulfilled its task, and ought to be allowed to drop away. It is not for the sake of the calyx, but for the sake of the corolla that we cultivate the flower, and the calyx may drop away when the flower is fully blown. To cling to the shadow when it had been superseded by the substance was to reverse the order of God. (F. W. Farrar.)

In a sermon preached at York Minster shortly after the death of the late Dean (Augustus Duncombe) Canon Body said:

A few days before his departure I was by his bedside, and in course of conversation alluded to his work for the Church, and the brave way he contended for the faith. He stopped me, saying, Say nothing of that. When you are where I am now you will see nothing will bear looking at of ones own. There is only one trust then, the infinite mercies of the Saviour: I said, True, it is peace, is it not, with you now: He replied, Perfect peace, thank God, perfect peace.

Justification impossible by the law

I. All men have sinned-are consequently under the sentence of the law.

II. The office of the law is not to acquit the sinner--but to detect--expose--and condemn his sin.

III. The works of the law only avail for the innocent--the works of a sinner are defective in principle and extent--cannot possibly reverse or atone for the past.

IV. All a sinner can expect from the law is aggravated punishment--his sins multiply--become more sinful by the rejection of Christ. (J. Lyth.)

The end and design of the Jewish law

We may proceed to observe more particularly that the apostle, designing on one hand to magnify the gospel by setting forth its sufficiency to salvation, and on the other hand to demonstrate the insufficiency and unnecessariness of the ceremonial observances of the Jewish law, does all along make use of such terms to express the Christian and Jewish religion by, as may best serve to set forth the excellency of the one, and diminish the opinion which men had taken up of the necessity of the other. And,

1. Because the first and most fundamental duty of the gospel is believing in God, and believing that most perfect revelation of His will which He has made to mankind by our Saviour Jesus Christ; whereas, on the contrary, the principal part of that religion which the Judaizing Christians so earnestly contended for was an anxious observance of the burdensome rites of the ceremonial law; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion faith, and the Jewish religion the law (Rom_3:28). Do we then, as some men object, by our preaching up the Christian religion, disannul and make void the law of God or that revelation of His will which He made to the Jews? No, we are so far from that, that by introducing Christianity we establish, confirm, and perfect the moral and immutable part of the law much more effectually than the Jewish ceremonies were able to do.

2. Because the Christian religion teaches us to expect salvation not from our own merits, but from the grace of God, that is, according to the terms of that new and gracious covenant wherein God has promised to accept of sincere repentance and amendment, instead of perfect unsinning obedience; whereas, on the contrary, the Jews depended upon their exact performance of the works of the law; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion grace, and the Jewish he styles works (Rom_11:5-6).

3. Because the duties of the Christian religion are almost wholly moral and spiritual, respecting the inward disposition of the heart and mind; whereas on the contrary the ceremonies of the Jewish law were for the most part external; and as the Apostle to the Hebrews styles them, carnal ordinances, respecting chiefly the outward purification of the body; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion spirit, and the Jewish he styles flesh. Thus in the Epistle to the Rom_8:3,

4. Thus also in the Epistle to the Gal_3:3; Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? i.e., Are ye so weak as to think, that after ye have embraced the gospel of Christ, ye can become yet more perfect by observing the ceremonies of the Jewish law. First, The Jewish religion having proved insufficient to make men truly holy, as natural religion also had before done, there was therefore a necessity of setting up another institution of religion, which might be more available and effectual to that end. Now the setting up a new institution of religion, necessarily implying the abolishing of the old, it follows that Christianity was not to be added to Judaism, but that Judaism was to be changed into Christianity, i.e., that the Jewish religion was from thenceforward to cease, and the Christian religion to succeed in its room. This argument the apostle insists upon in chaps, 1., 2., 5., 6., and 7. to the Romans, and in chaps, 1. and 4. to the Galatians. The Jewish law was an institution of religion adapted by God in great condescension to the weak apprehensions of that people; but when the fulness of time was come, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to institute a more perfect form of religion, after the settlement of which in the world the former dispensation was to cease. And that it must needs do so, is evident also from the nature of the thing itself; for as after remission of sin obtained by the sufficient sacrifice of Christ, there needed no more legal sacrifices to be offered for sin; so in all other its ritual parts, the first covenant was in course taken away by establishing the second; there being necessarily a dis-annulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof (Heb_7:18). That, Secondly, The sum and essence of all religion is obedience to the moral and eternal law of God. Since therefore the ceremonies of the Jewish law were never of any esteem in the sight of God, any otherwise than as they promoted this great end, and prepared mens hearts for the reception of that more perfect institution of religion, wherein God was to be worshipped and obeyed in spirit and in truth; tis manifest that when this more perfect institution of religion was settled, the former and more imperfect one was to cease. This argument the apostle insists on in the second chapter to the Romans, and in the third to the Galatians. Thirdly, The religion of Abraham was acceptable to God, before the giving of the law; the Scripture saying expressly that the gospel was preached before unto Abraham: and consequently it could not but be acceptable likewise, after the abolishing of the law. Lastly, That by the posterity of Abraham, were not meant strictly those who descended from Abraham according to the flesh; but the children of the promise (that is, as many as are of the faith of Abraham) shall be counted for the seed. That the true religion therefore, and the service of God, was not to be confined always to the nation of the Jews, who were the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh; but the Gentiles also, which believe, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; that is, those of all nations as well Gentiles as Jews, who embrace the gospel, which is the same with the religion of Abraham, shall be justified with faithful Abraham. And this argument the apostle insists upon in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and in the fourth to the Galatians. And now from what has been said, I shall, in order to practice, draw two or three useful inferences; and so conclude. And,

1. From hence it appears, that though the essence of religion be eternally and immutably the same, yet the form and institution of it may be and often has been changed. The essence of all religion is obedience to that moral and eternal law, which obliges us to imitate the life of God in justice, mercy, and holiness, that is, to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world. But though religion itself be thus immutably the same, yet the form and institution thereof may be different. When natural religion, because of its difficulty and obscurity in the present corrupt estate of human nature, proved ineffectual to make men truly religious; God left them no longer to the guidance of their reason only, but gave them first the Patriarchal and afterwards the Mosaic dispensation; and when this also, by reason of its being burdened with so many ritual observances, proved ineffectual to the same great end, God abolished this form of religion also, and instituted the Christian. In all which proceeding there is no reflection at all upon the immutable nature of God: for as the Divine nature is in the truest and highest sense unchangeable, so religion itself in its nature and essence is likewise unchangeable; but as the capacities, the prejudices, and the circumstances of men are different; so the institution and outward form of that religion, which in its essence is always the same, may be and hath been changed by the good pleasure of God.

2. If the whole and only design of St. Paul, in these Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, be to prove that God hath indeed made this change of the institution of religion from the Jewish to the Christian, and to vindicate His justice in so doing, then we ought never so to understand any passages in these Epistles, as if the apostles designed to magnify one Christian virtue in opposition to all or any of the rest; but only that he would set forth the perfection of the virtues of the Christian religion without the ceremonies of the Jewish. Thus when he tells us that we are justified by faith without works, we must by no means interpret it, as some have absurdly done, of the faith of the Christian religion in opposition to the works of the Christian religion; but of the faith of the gospel, in opposition to the external works of the Jewish law. But as to the works of the Christian religion, the same apostle everywhere urgeth their necessity; and particularly the five last chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, are a most earnest exhortation to be fruitful therein.

3. From hence it follows that there is no contradiction between St. Paul and St. James, when the one says that a man is justified by faith without works, and the other says that faith without works cannot justify; for the one speaks professedly of the works of the Jewish religion, and the other of the works of the Christian. Lastly, If St. Paul so severely treated the Judaizing Christians, as to call them perverters of the gospel of Christ, and esteem them as preachers of another gospel; then let us also take heed lest on the authority of men we preach or obey at any time any other gospel than what Christ and His apostles preached and obeyed. (S. Clarke, D. D.)

Justification

I. In what manner justification cannot be obtained. We are justified not by the works of the law. It will naturally be asked, what is meant by the law, as spoken of here by the apostle? To this I reply, reference is no doubt here made to the ceremonial law, and hence to circumcision, and the other rites and ceremonies enjoined by that ritual. By these things, however, a man cannot be justified. Nor can the moral law, as embodied in the Ten Commandments, do so; for the whole tenor of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, declares, with reference to man as a sinner, We are justified not by works of the law. As given to Adam, when a perfect creature, the moral law (comprised in one brief injunction, as the test of his obedience) was ordained unto life, and was calculated, if observed, to perpetuate life; but as given to us, who are fallen and corrupt, it is only calculated to produce death, showing us our guilt, and our consequent desert of death as the punishment of that guilt. Like the angel, then, with the flaming sword at the east of the garden of Eden, the law drives us from itself that we may seek salvation elsewhere. And whither does it drive us? This we shall see while we notice--

II. In what manner justification can be obtained. We have believed in Jesus Christ.

1. We are justified by believing in what Christ did. The Lord Jesus Christ, made of a woman, made under the law, obeyed the law perfectly in our behalf. But we are justified by believing, not only in what Christ did, but also--

2. In what Christ suffered.

Having thus, in accordance with the words of our text, stated in what manner we cannot, and in what manner we can, be justified before God, I now proceed to apply the subject, in the way of warning and of consolation.

1. Warning. The reason, my brethren, why St. Paul was so earnest upon this matter was, because he felt that the eternal salvation of multitudes was herein involved. I ask, if you are conscious that you are sinners against God, how are your sins to be forgiven? You reply, that you hope your good moral character will screen your secret deficiencies. But, brethren, trust not in such a spiders web. Such a confidence will assuredly fail you when you most want it. You cannot have a debtor-and-creditor account with God. Perhaps you are saying, God is merciful, and will not be extreme to mark what is done amiss. God is merciful; but you must remember that He is at the same time just, and that He will by no means clear the guilty. Do you say, that you will do your best, and leave Christ to make up the remainder? In that case you make Christ a divided Saviour. If, again, you would plead your sincere obedience, you must remember that God is a perfect God, and can therefore accept nothing short of a perfect obedience. No, brethren; in Christ, and Christ alone, must be our confidence. I need not, however, I trust, remind those of you who profess to esteem Christ as all your salvation and all your desire, that although you hold the truth, there is danger, if you watch not, of holding that truth in unrighteousness. The sun, by his bright beams, not only expels the cold, but causes heat and fruitfulness also. So is it in the justification of a sinner. There is not only the pardon of sin, but likewise an infusion of grace and holiness. While, therefore, we profess that we are justified, not by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ, let us also remember to go on perfecting holiness in the fear of God. The subject, however, supplies us not only with a word of warning, but also with one of-2. Consolation. Blessed be God, the doctrine that we are justified by faith is, as our article expresses it, not only a most wholesome doctrine, but also one very full of comfort. And, brethren, it ought to be a source of the highest consolation to you to remember how complete is this gift. (C. Clayton, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:16 Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners; the Good News requires both Jews and Gentiles to acknowledge that they are sinful (see Rom 2:1-5; 3:1-20) and in need of God’s grace (Rom 3:21-26). Peter later demonstrated his agreement with this message (Acts 15:7-11).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 2:16. Εἰδότες, knowing) i.e. since we have come to know.—ἄνθρωπος, a man) every man, whether Jew, or Greek.—ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, by the works of the law) The followers of Galatism, from not clearly understanding and not rightly interpreting the nature and end of the moral law, earnestly maintained the ceremonial law; and, acknowledging little or no distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, they comprehended both under one word, the law, and therefore sought to be justified in the observance of the whole law. The apostle therefore in a similar manner refuting them, includes the two in one word; or, where he uses the word law more strictly, he means the moral law itself; he calls the ceremonial law by a different appellation, elements, etc. But the state of the controversy came more prominently under notice, in so far as it regarded the ceremonial law, than in so far as the same regarded the moral law: since the matter of the former being about times, circumcision, meats, etc., met the eye more than that of the latter; and the abrogation of the former, which was complete, was more conspicuous, than that of the latter, which was only abrogated in some one respect. Hence it happens that some arguments serve particularly against justification by the ceremonial law; there are more, however, which serve against justification by the law taken universally, including even the moral law. The whole is more clearly evident from the economy of the epistle to the Galatians; for in ch. 1 and 2 the apostle shows that he was sent and taught by God, and was in no respect inferior to the other apostles, as his conferences for promoting peace, nay even his controversial debates, held with them, and with Peter himself, plainly evince. In the third chapter, there is the discussion on the moral law; whence at ch. Gal 4:1-11, arguments are deduced regarding the ceremonial law, and, after an allegory has been interposed in reference to both, in ch. 5 the question is raised respecting circumcision in particular. This is the sum: Moses and Jesus Christ; the law and the promise; doing and believing; works and faith; wages and the gift; the curse and the blessing,—are represented as diametrically opposed to each other. And the Decalogue is left by Paul either altogether untouched, or it is included under the term law; nay, the Decalogue is properly that law, which, though it is declared, that it cannot justify, is yet established by faith; for, truly the ceremonial law is entirely abolished: [2Co 3:13]; Rom 3:31. But Sinai, Gal 4:24, is much more celebrated for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law. Nor was the ceremonial law a yoke intolerable in itself, but it derived its strength from the moral law, Acts 15. Therefore the moral law is, so to speak, more legal than the ceremonial, which was at the same time, as it were, an elementary and preliminary Gospel. See also Rom 3:20, note.—ἐὰν μὴ, [but by] if not) a particle to be resolved into ἀλλὰ, but, though with greater force. Man is not justified by the works of the law, and therefore in no other way save by faith. We find the same meaning attached to the particles, and not, which occur presently after.—διὰ, by) by is used concerning the Gentiles; from [ἐκ—ἐξ] presently after, concerning the Jews, Rom 3:30, note.—Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, of Jesus Christ) i.e. in Christ Jesus, as the expression follows presently after with the names transposed.[14] The name Jesus was the name that became known first to the Gentiles; the name Christ to the Jews. Wherefore the order is not always indiscriminate, where both names are used as here; Rom 15:5-6; 1Ti 1:15-16; 1Ti 2:5; 1Ti 6:13-14; 2Ti 1:9-10, notes: and generally in more solemn discourse Christ Jesus is used; in that which is more ordinary, Jesus Christ.—καὶ ἡμεῖς) we ourselves also; how much more the Gentiles.—ἐπιστεύσαμεν, we have believed) i.e. we began to believe long ago.—διότι, because that) The consequence is proved in reference to the Jews.

[14] Engl. Vers. has We have believed in Jesus Christ. But ACD(Δ)Gg Vulg. have the order Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Bf Memph. and later Syr. support the order Ἰης, Χριστ.—ED

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Gal_2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί, a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες, and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ

Gal_2:16 is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Gal_2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί, a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες, and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ.τ.λ. is taken as apodosis (Beza and others; also Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, de conform. N.T. Lachm. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Matthias, Möller). Both forms of construction would give εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ as the motive for the ἐπιστεύσαμεν. But in this way the statement, how Paul and Peter (for these are the subject; see on Gal_2:15) attained to faith, would not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of εἰδότες … ἐπιστεύσαμεν. Both of them were in fact miraculously and suddenly laid hold of by Christ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must therefore consider as correct the punctuation of Lachmann,[94] who is followed by Wieseler: a comma only before εἰδότες, and a period after Χριστοῦ, We are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however (εἰδότες still belonging to the ἐσμέν, which has to be supplied), that is, since we nevertheless know, that a man is not justified, etc.; so that what thou, Peter, doest (Gal_2:15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have notwithstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence.

οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος] The emphatically prefixed δικαιοῦται is negatived: a man is not justified. As to the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι, see on Rom_1:17. Here also it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incompatible with the perversion of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander. See especially Wieseler in loc. From works of the law, which would be the determining ground of Gods acquittal; by means of faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom_5:5; Rom_5:21 f.),these are the contrasted points, while the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι is the same. Comp. on Rom_3:25 f.

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου] νόμου is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts calls forth), but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the precepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the ἁμαρτήματα νόμου, Wis_2:12. See on Rom_2:15. Our passage testifies also in favour of this view by the contrast of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, inasmuch as the one relation (ἔργων) to the one object (νόμου) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation (πίστεως) to the other object (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Schott, following the older expositors (including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus), quite erroneously limits νόμος to the ceremonial law,a limitation which never occurs in the N.T.[95] (see on Rom_3:20, and Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 336), and, especially where justification is the matter in question, would be quite unsuitable; for the impossibility of justification by the law has reference to the whole law, viewed in its requirements jointly and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man can fulfil. Comp. Gal_3:10; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 259.

ἐὰν μή] not a compromise between justification by works and justification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness (Holsten, in spite of the apodosis), but a transition to another mode of conception: A man is not justified by the works of the law; he is not justified, except by etc. Comp. Hymn. Cer. 77 f., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος αἴτιος ἀθανάτων, εἰ μὴ νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς. Comp. on Mat_12:4; Rom_14:14. See also on Gal_1:7. Consequently we have here neither justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic view), nor Christs fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended by faith.[96] The former is not Pauline,[97] and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the N.T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christs obedience to the law), in so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes His active, sinless obedience (2Co_5:21), of which, however, nothing is here said. But here in ἐὰν μή we have the sola fide of Luther and his Church. Comp. on Rom_3:28. It is only the man justified solely by faith, who thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law; see on Rom_8:4. This is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] object: on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mar_11:22; see on Rom_3:22, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 112.

ἐξ and διά denote the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of mediate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions (see on Rom_3:30; 2Co_3:11; Eph_1:7). In διά (comp. Gal_3:26) faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justificationthe presence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justification; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing to do with this relation, any more than ἐξ postpones the being righteous, as the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived at any moment of life, as a result for the time being.

καὶ ἡμεῖς] begins a new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a point on which both were convinced,

ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστ. Ἰ. Χ.,he now confirms by reminding him of the righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers (ἐπιστεύσαμεν); so that καὶ ἡμεῖς, even we both, supplies the special application of the foregoing general ἄνθρωπος. The order Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν lays a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the object of faith, than is the case in the usual order (comp. Gal_2:4; Gal_3:26).

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ] Comp. Rom_3:20. These words, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, take up again what had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory ὅτι, since indeed. Πᾶσα σάρξ conveys the idea of all men (comp. above, ἄνθρωπος), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of works in the sight of the justifying God. Comp. on Act_2:17. Looking at the difference in the terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof (from Psa_143:2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation is here also not to be separated from the verb; for it is not πᾶσα σάρξ which is negatived, but δικαιωθήσεται in reference to πᾶσα σάρξ. Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 26) aptly says: non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis. Lastly, the future denotes that which never will occur. The reference to the judgment (Rom_5:19), which is discovered here by Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place. Comp. Gal_2:21. It is otherwise, Gal_5:5; 2Ti_4:8.

[94] In the small edition; in the larger one the usual punctuation is followed.

[95] Although, according to the context, at one time the ethical, and at another the ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. Comp. on Rom_3:20.

[96] So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 18 f.

[97] See the constantly repeated attacks on the part of the Catholics against the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, in Möhler, Symbol. p. 132, ed. 4; Reithmayr, p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and elsewhere. On the other hand, Romang (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much concession to the Catholic justification by works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erroneously assumed a gradual progress of justification.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 2:16 . οὐ δικαιοῦται … Two methods of seeking justification in the sight of God are here distinguished. The former took account of nothing but stedfast obedience to the law of God. Before his conversion Paul knew no other: he had been taught by his legal training to base his standard of right and wrong entirely on the revealed law, to find in it the sole guide of conscience, and to measure righteousness by conformity to its commandments alone.

But his view of God’s judgment had been profoundly modified by his conversion. He had learnt on the one hand from the teaching of Christ how impossible it was for man to attain to perfect righteousness, seeing that God claims not only obedience to the letter of the law, but an allegiance of the heart too thorough to be attainable by human infirmity. But on the other hand he knew now that God is a loving Father in Christ, ever seeking out His erring children that He may win them back, ever ready to temper strict justice with infinite mercy, and waiting only for the first response of imperfect faith and imperfect repentance, so they be at all sincere, to blot out a guilty past, and pronounce a favourable judgment on the sinner. He perceived that there is room in the judgment of God for another element beside strict justice, viz. , the mercy of the judge, and that a prisoner, however clear may be his guilt on the evidence of his life, may nevertheless be assured of pardon and acceptance by throwing himself in humble trust on that mercy. In the Epistles of Paul accordingly justification acquired a new meaning, becoming equivalent to acceptance before God, and the term righteousness was applied to the merciful acquittal of the guilty but penitent offender.

The clause ἐξ ἔργων νόμου defines an acquittal on the merits of the case alone, based on a life of holy obedience, while διὰ πίστεως Ἰ . Χρ . points to faith in Christ as the appointed channel of God’s mercy. ἐπιστεύσαμεν . Here, as in Rom 13:11 , this verb denotes the act of embracing the faith. Jewish Christians had by their conversion declared the hopelessness of their position under the Law without Christ. Faith in him was (they saw) the only means of obtaining justification. διότι … This clause corroborates the verdict of conscience and experience by the authority of Scripture, for it adopts the language of Psa 142 (143) 2, οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν , with only some verbal alterations suggested by the context of the Epistle. As two kinds of justification have been mentioned, the clause ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is required here to make it clear that the justification to which the Psalm refers was legal, the words ἐνώπιόν σου are dropped as needless in this context, and πᾶσα σάρξ is substituted for πᾶς ζῶν in order to show that the Psalm referred to earthly life. The passage is quoted with corresponding verbal changes in Rom 3:20 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου “yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law.” In antithesis to the preceding concessive phrase this is causal, giving the reason for the ἐπιστεύσαμεν of the principal clause. To be justified, δικαιοῦσθαι, is to be accounted by God acceptable to him, to be approved of God, accepted as being such as God desires man to be. In the word δικαιόω we have one of those great words of the Pauline vocabulary, a right understanding of which is of the highest importance for the interpretation of this letter and of the Pauline theology. But an adequate conception of its meaning can hardly be conveyed in a phrase; still less can the definition of it be justified in a sentence. For a fuller discussion intended to set the word in its true historic light and to present the evidence which sustains the definition thus reached, see the detached note on Δίκαιος, Δικαιοσύνη, and Δικαιόω, p. 460, in particular under VI, N. T. usage, C. 2 (b), p. 473. ἄνθρωπος is used in its wholly indefinite sense, as equivalent to τὶς. Cf. Rom 3:28, 1Co 4:1, 1Co 11:28.

We meet here for the first time in this letter the phrase ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, which in this letter and in the epistle to the Romans plays so important a part in the apostle’s discussion of the basis of acceptance with God. Like δικαιόω, the phrase calls for an extended historical investigation, for which see detached note on Νόμος, p. 443. νόμου is here evidently used qualitatively, and in its legalistic sense, denoting divine law viewed as a purely legalistic system made up of statutes, on the basis of obedience or disobedience to which men are approved or condemned as a matter of debt without grace. This is divine law as the legalist defined it. In the apostle’s thought it stands for a reality only in that it constitutes a single element of the divine law detached from all other elements and aspects of divine revelation; by such detachment it misrepresents the will of God and his real attitude towards men. By ἔργα νόμου Paul means deeds of obedience to formal statutes done in the legalistic spirit, with the expectation of thereby meriting and securing divine approval and award, such obedience, in other words, as the legalists rendered to the law of the O. T. as expanded and interpreted by them. Though νόμος in this sense had no existence as representing the basis of justification in the divine government, yet ἔργα νόμου had a very real existence in the thought and practice of men who conceived of the divine law after this fashion. The preposition ἐξ properly denotes source, in this case the source of justification. Since, however, justification is an act of God, while ἔργα νόμου are deeds of men, the preposition in effect marks its object as a conditioning cause, whose inadequacy for the justification of men the apostle says he and Peter already knew. The translation of this phrase here and constantly in RV. by “the works of the law,” retained also in ARV, and in general the ignoring of the qualitative use of νόμος and other like terms, is a serious defect of these translations. Cf. Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, pp. 39 f.

ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, “but only through faith in Christ Jesus.” ἐὰν μή is properly exceptive, not adversative (cf. on 1:19), but it may introduce an exception to the preceding statement taken as a whole or to the principal part of it—in this case to οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου or to οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος alone. The latter alternative is clearly to be chosen here, since the former would yield the thought that a man can be justified by works of law if this be accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed in several passages. See, e.g., the latter part of this verse and 3:10-14, where faith and works of law are set in sharp antithesis with one another. But since the word “except” in English is always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation “but only.”

In πίστις, as in δικαιόω and νόμος, we have a word of central importance in the vocabulary of Paul. It signifies an acceptance of that which accredits itself as true, and a corresponding trust in a person which dominates the life and conduct. Its personal object is God, or especially Christ as the revelation of God. For fuller discussion, see detached note on Πίστις and Πιστεύω, p. 475, esp. V B. II 2 (e), p. 482. The following clause by its relation to the present clause evidently defines both the specific nature of the faith here referred to and the relation of Christ Jesus to it. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is therefore to be taken as an objective genitive, expressing substantially the same relation to πίστις which is expressed after the verb by εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

On the view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi u. der christliche Glaube, Leipzig, 1891, that the genitive in such cases is subjective, the phrase denoting the faith which Christ exercised, see the brief note in S. and H. on Rom 3:22. The evidence that πίστις like ἐλπίς and ἀγάπη may take an objective genitive is too clear to be questioned (cf. Mar 11:22, Act 3:16, Col 2:12, 2Th 2:13). This once established, the context in the present case (see esp. the phrase εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν) is decisive for its acceptance here; and the meaning here in turn practically decides the meaning of the phrase throughout this epistle. See 2:20, 3:22.

The preposition διά, properly denoting channel and then means, here marks its object as the means through which one secures justification, and so, in effect, the conditioning cause, that in man by virtue of which he is justified by God. To draw any sharp distinction between διά as here used and ἐκ in ἐξ ἔργων νόμου above or in ἐκ πίστεως below is unjustifiable refinement, not legitimate exegesis.

After διὰ πίστεως אCDFGKLP al. pler. It. Vg. al. read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, on the other hand, is the reading of AB 33, some mss. of Vg. Victorin. Aug. An examination of all the occurrences of the title Χριστός, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, or Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς in this epistle indicates a preference of the scribes for the form Χρ. or Χρ. Ἰης. after ἐν, but elsewhere for Ἰης. Χρ. rather than Χρ. Ἰης.; thus in 1:1, 12, 3:1, 22, 6:14, 18 Ἰης. Χρ. occurs (not after ἐν) without variant or with unimportant variation. In 1:22, 2:4, 17, 3:26, 28, 5:6 ἐν Χριστῷ or ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occurs without important variation. Cf. also 6:15, where ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ is doubtless an addition to the original text, but attested by a large number of authorities without variation in the form of the name. In 3:22, where the correct text is undoubtedly Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, L reads ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. On the other hand, there are exceptions: in the present passage, 2:16a, after διὰ πίστεως there is, as shown above, good authority for both Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ and Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; in 2:16b, after εἰς most authorities read Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, but B 322, 429, Syr. (psh. harcl.) Boh. Aeth., etc., read Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, which Tdf. adopts and WH. prefer; in 5:24 τοῦ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is doubtless the original reading, but many authorities omit Ἰησοῦ; in 3:14 authorities are divided between ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ and ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. Only in 4:14 has Χρ. Ιη. not after ἐν been allowed to stand without variation; in 6:12 only B 31 are cited for Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, all others reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The evidence of the other Pauline epistles points in the same direction. ἐν Χριστῷ and ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ occur often, with frequent variations in the mss. between the two forms, but in no Greek ms. of these epistles has the form ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ been noted. In 2Th 1:1 occurs the form ἐν … κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. Some authorities omit κυρίῳ and transpose to Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. In Php 3:14 to ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ some Western authorities add κυρίῳ after ἐν and then transpose to Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. See also Rom 14:14, Php 2:19 where numerous authorities convert ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, into ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. In other words, while this evidence shows that it was the apostle’s usual habit to write Χριστῷ or Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ after ἐν and to prefer the form Ἰης. Χρ. rather than Χρ. Ἰης. in other positions, yet it also shows (a) that he allowed himself a certain liberty in the matter, and (b) that the tendency of the scribes was (as was natural) to conform his text to his usual habit. The evidence therefore tends to confirm the general estimate of the testimony of AB and points to the conclusion that in such cases as the present passage (2:16a and b) 3:14 (q. v.) 5:24, it is the apostle who has departed from his usual habit; most of the scribes have conformed the text to it.

καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, “even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law.” On the significance of the individual words, the qualitative force of the anarthrous nouns and the force of the genitive after πίστεως, see comment on the former part of the verse. καί, throwing its emphasis on ἡμεῖς, itself emphatic by the very fact of being expressed, especially after having already been expressed at the beginning of the sentence, serves to recall ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι of v. 15. ἐπιστεύσαμεν εἰς expresses in its fullest and most definite form the act of Christian faith, the committal of one’s self to Christ on the basis of the acceptance of the message concerning him. See the detached note on Πίστις and Πιστεύω, pp. 475-485, esp. V A. 2, p. 480.

The emphasis of ἵνα … νόμου, which expresses the purpose of ἐπιστεύσαμεν, is evidently upon the verb, not upon its limitations; the latter ἐκ πίστεως, etc., are in effect a re-assertion of the condition on which alone justification is possible. For a somewhat similar instance of emphasis upon one element of a clause, see Rom 6:17. ἐκ πίστεως differs from διὰ πίστεως in the former clause rather in the form than in the substance of the thought expressed, διά denoting the means by which, ἐκ that in consequence of which, one is justified. Cf. Th. ἐκ II 6, and for examples indicating the practical equivalence of the two expressions, see (for διά) chap. 3:26, Rom 3:22, Rom 3:25, Eph 2:8, Eph 2:3:12, Eph 2:17; (for ἐκ) chap. 3:7, 8, 9, Rom 1:17, Rom 1:3:26, Rom 1:4:16, Rom 1:5:1, Rom 1:9:30, Rom 1:32; and especially Rom 3:30, where, as here, the two prepositions occur in adjacent clauses.

On the reasons for preferring the reading, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, see on Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ above.

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου “οὐ δικαιωθησεται πᾶσα σάρξ.” “because by works of law shall no flesh be justified.” This clause, added at the end of a verse which has already twice expressed in effect the same thought, is evidently intended to confirm what has been said by the authority of scripture. The words οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ are from Psa 143:2, following substantially the Lxx (which itself renders the Hebrew exactly) except that ἐνώπιόν σου, “before thee,” is omitted and πᾶσα σάρξ substituted for πᾶς ζῶν of the Lxx. The word σάρξ, here used by metonymy for a materially conditioned being, is practically equivalent to ἄνθρωπος. See detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ, p. 486, esp. p. 492. The words ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, which are essential to the apostle’s purpose, are not in the psalm. There is, however, a basis for them in the preceding line, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant,” which gives to the words that Paul has quoted the sense, “no man can be justified if judged on a basis of merit, all grace and mercy on God’s part being excluded.” The words added are therefore a correct interpretative gloss. Indeed, the teaching of the apostle on this point is a re-exposition in clearer form of a doctrine already taught by the Hebrew prophets.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In Jesus Christ.

No man, and in this word (flesh) there is a great vehemence, whereby is meant that the nature of man is utterly corrupt.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

not justified by the works of the law--as the GROUND of justification. "The works of the law" are those which have the law for their object--which are wrought to fulfil the law [ALFORD].

but by--Translate, "But only (in no other way save) through faith in Jesus Christ," as the MEAN and instrument of justification.

Jesus Christ--In the second case, read with the oldest manuscripts, "Christ Jesus," the Messiahship coming into prominence in the case of Jewish believers, as "Jesus" does in the first case, referring to the general proposition.

justified by the faith of Christ--that is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the ground of our justification.

for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified--He rests his argument on this as an axiom in theology, referring to Psa 143:2, "Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise; Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curse and the blessing--are represented as diametrically opposed" [BENGEL]. The moral law is, in respect to justification, more legal than the ceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So "Sinai" (Gal 4:24), which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, is made pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification by the law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Rom 3:20).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 16. Knowing that a man is not justified] See the notes on Ro 1:17; Ro 3:24; Ro 3:27; Ro 8:3. And see on Ac 13:38; Ac 13:39, in which places the subject of this verse is largely discussed. Neither the works of the Jewish law, nor of any other law, could justify any man; and if justification or pardon could not have been attained in some other way, the world must have perished. Justification by faith, in the boundless mercy of God, is as reasonable as it is Scriptural and necessary.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. But by the faith of Jesus Christ. He does not merely state that ceremonies, or works of any kind, are insufficient without the assistance of faith, but meets their denial by a statement admitting of no exception, as if he had said, “Not by works, but by the Gift of Christ alone.” In any other point of view, the sentiment would have been trivial and foreign to the purpose; for the false apostles did not reject Christ nor faith, but demanded that ceremonies should be joined with them. If Paul had admitted this claim, they would have been perfectly at one, and he would have been under no necessity to agitate the church by this unpleasant debate. Let it therefore remain settled, that the proposition is so framed as to admit of no exception, “that we are justified in no other way than by faith,” or, “that we are not justified but by faith,” or, which amounts to the same thing, “that we are justified by faith alone.”

Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works. As to the word justification, and the manner in which faith is the cause of it, we shall afterwards see.

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. He had already appealed to the consciences of Peter and others, and now confirms it more fully by affirming that such is the actual truth, that by the works of the law no mortal will obtain justification. This is the foundation of a freely bestowed righteousness, when we are stripped of a righteousness of our own. Besides, when he asserts that no mortal is justified by the righteousness of the law, the assertion amounts to this, that from such a mode of justification all mortals are excluded, and that none can possibly reach it.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(16) Is not justified.—Here the Apostle introduces, for the first time in the Epistle, the word which plays so prominent a part in the Epistle to the Romans—“pronounced just or righteous”—free from guilt, and therefore from punishment—in the sight of God. This condition could not be produced by works done in obedience to the Law.

But.—The sense of the Greek is not clearly brought out by the Authorised version. A more strict translation would be except, which is made to refer only to the word “justified,” and not to the previous negation of works, as the cause of justification. “A man is not justified by works (nor is he justified at all), except by faith in Christ.”

By the faith of Jesus Christ.—The preposition “by” occurs five times in this verse. In every case except the present it is represented by the same word in Greek. There is, however, no substantial difference of meaning; the only difference is that in the other cases stress is laid rather upon the cause, here rather upon the means. “Faith of Jesus Christ” means, as we are more accustomed to say, “faith in Jesus Christ.”

Even we.—Rather, we too. Jews as we are, in spite of all our privileges.

Have believed.—Rather, believed. This was the great motive of our conversion. We found that the Law could not justify us and that Christ could.

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.—This is a quotation for which no exact equivalent is to be found in the Old Testament. The nearest appears to be Psa_143:2 : “In thy sight shall no man living be justified.” This, as written under the dispensation of the Law, naturally applied to that dispensation, so that the Apostle was justified in adding “by the works of the Law.” The same quotation, in the same words, is made in Rom_3:20.

The inability of the Law to justify comes out in two ways. (1) The only way in which the Law could justify was through a complete obedience to its provisions. But it was impossible to render a complete obedience to it: and to offend in one point was “to be guilty of all;” so that practically, as a matter of fact, no one was justified by it. (2) Nor did it help men to justify themselves. It was something dead and lifeless—a mere written letter, possessing none of those “means of grace” which are offered by Christianity. Christ Himself, through faith in Him, is the great means.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law,.... That is, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and other believing Jews knew this, and that from the law itself, which requires perfect and sinless obedience, and accuses, holds guilty, and adjudges to condemnation and death for the least failure, both as to matter or manner of duty; and from the prophets, which declare that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified in the sight of God, and who bear witness to the doctrines of remission of sin, and justification by the righteousness of Christ; and from the Gospel, in which this truth is most clearly revealed; and from the illumination of the blessed Spirit, who led them into all truth; and from the revelation of Jesus Christ they were favoured with; and from their own experience, being fully convinced of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the insufficiency of their own righteousness, and of the necessity, suitableness, and fulness of the righteousness of Christ. By "the works of the law" are meant, not only obedience to the ceremonial law, though this is included, but also to the moral law; for it can hardly be thought, that the men the apostle opposes could ever dream of justification by their compliance with the rituals of the ceremonial law if they believed there could be no justification by their obedience to the moral law; for if there is no justification by the latter, there can be none by the former: the words are therefore to be taken in the largest sense, as rejecting all works of the law, of whatsoever kind, from justification in the sight of God; and such works are designed, as are performed by sinful men in and of themselves, otherwise men are justified by the works of the law as performed by Christ in their room and stead, but not by any as performed by themselves, for at best they are very imperfect, and so cannot justify; they are opposed to the grace of God, to which the justification of a sinner is always ascribed, and therefore cannot be by works; such a scheme would disannul the death of Christ, and promote boasting in men, and indeed is impracticable and impossible:

but by the faith of Jesus Christ; not by that faith, which Christ, as man, had in God, who promised him help, succour, and assistance, and for which he, as man, trusted in him, and exercised faith upon him; but that faith of which he is the object, author, and finisher; and not by that as a cause, for faith has no causal influence on the justification of a sinner; it is not the efficient cause, for it is God that justifies; nor the moving cause, or which induces God to justify any, for that is his own free grace and good will; nor the meritorious or procuring cause, for that is the obedience and bloodshed of Christ; nor is faith the matter of justification; it is not a justifying righteousness; it is a part of sanctification; it is imperfect; as an act it is a man's own, and will not continue for ever in its present form, nature, and use; and is always distinguished from the righteousness of God, by which we are justified, which is perfect, is another's, and will last for ever. Men are not justified by faith, either as an habit, or an act; not by it as an habit or principle, this would be to confound justification and sanctification; nor as an act, for as such it is a man's own, and then justification would be by a man's works, contrary to the Scripture: but faith is to be taken either objectively, as it relates to Christ, the object of it, and his justifying righteousness; or as it is a means of receiving and apprehending Christ's righteousness; the discovery of it is made to faith; that grace discerns the excellency and suitableness of it, approves of it, rejects a man's own, lays hold on this, and rejoices in it:

even we have believed in Jesus Christ; we who are Jews by nature, being fully apprized that there is no justification by the works of the law, but by the righteousness of Christ, received by faith, have quited all confidence in our own works, and are come to Christ, and believe in him, not only as the Messiah, but as the Lord our righteousness:

that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; not that faith, as before observed, has any causal influence on justification. These Jews did not believe in Christ, in order by their believing to procure their justification before God, and acceptance with him, but that they might receive, by faith, this blessing from the Lord in their own conscience, and enjoy the comfort of it, and all that spiritual peace which results from it, and which they could not find in the works of the law:

for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; reference seems to be had to Psa 143:2 and contains a reason why these believing Jews relinquished Moses in his law, in whom they formerly trusted, and looked to, and depended on for their justification, because that by obedience to the law of works no sinful mortal man can be justified in the sight of God,

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Knowing - We who are Jews by nature, or by birth. This cannot mean that all the Jews knew this, or that he who was a Jew knew it as a matter of course, for many Jews were ignorant of it, and many opposed it. But it means that the persons here referred to, those who had been born Jews, and who had been converted to Christianity, had had an opportunity to learn and understand this, which the Gentiles had not. This gospel had been preached to them, and they had professedly embraced it. They were not left to the gross darkness and ignorance on this subject which pervaded the pagan world, and they had had a better opportunity to learn it than the converts from the Gentiles. They ought, therefore, to act in a manner becoming their superior light, and to show in all their conduct that they fully believed that a man could not be justified by obedience to the Law of Moses. This rendered the conduct of Peter and the other Jews who “dissembled” with him so entirely inexcusable. They could not plead ignorance on this vital subject, and yet they were pursuing a course, the tendency of which was to lead the Gentile converts to believe that it was indispensable to observe the laws of Moses, in order to be justified and saved.

That a man is not justified by the works of the law - See the notes at Rom 1:17; Rom 3:20, Rom 3:26; Rom 4:5.

But by the faith of Jesus Christ - By believing on Jesus Christ; see the Mar 16:16 note; Rom 3:22 note.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ - We are therefore justified. The object of Paul here seems to be to show, that as they had believed in the Lord Jesus, and thus had been justified, there was no necessity of obeying the Law of Moses with any view to justification. The thing had been fully done without the deeds of the Law, and it was now unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on the observance of the Mosaic rites.

For by the works of the law ... - See the notes at Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27. In this verse, the apostle has stated in few words the important doctrine of justification by faith - the doctrine which Luther so justly called, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis ecclesioe. In the notes referred to above, particularly in the notes at the Epistle to the Romans, I have stated in various places what I conceive to be the true doctrine on this important subject. It may be useful, however, to throw together in one connected view, as briefly as possible, the leading ideas on the subject of justification, as it is revealed in the gospel.

I. Justification is properly a word applicable to courts of justice, but is used in a similar sense in common conversation among people. An illustration will show its nature. A man is charged, e. g., with an act of trespass on his neighbor’s property. Now there are two ways which he may take to justify himself, or to meet the charge, so as to be regarded and treated as innocent. He may:

Either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may, Admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defense that he had a right to do it.

In either case, if the point is made out, he will be just or innocent in the sight of the Law. The Law will have nothing against him, and he will be regarded and treated in the premises as an innocent man; or he has justified himself in regard to the charge brought against him.

II. Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged with violating the Law of God; with a want of love to his Maker; with a corrupt, proud, sensual heart; with being entirely alienated from God by wicked works; in one word, with being entirely depraved. This charge extends to all people; and to the entire life of every unrenewed person. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from God; a charge, in short, of total depravity; see, especially, Rom. 1; 2; 3. That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt. That it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals in proof of it to the history of the world, to every man’s conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on his own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, he rests the proofs of the charge.

III. It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from this charge. He can neither show that the things charged have not been committed, nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He cannot prove that God is not right in all the charges which he has made against him in his word; and he cannot prove that it was right for him to do as he has done. The charges against him are facts which are undeniable, and the facts are such as cannot be vindicated. But if he can do neither of these things, then he cannot be justified by the Law. The Law will not acquit him. It holds him guilty. It condemns him. No argument which he can use will show that he is right, and that God is wrong. No works that he can perform will be any compensation for what he has already done. No denial of the existence of the facts charged will alter the ease; and he must stand condemned by the Law of God. In the legal sense he cannot be justified; and justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of law, and in a mode which the Law did not contemplate, for no law makes any provision for the pardon of those who violate it. It must be by some system which is distinct from the Law, and in which man may be justified on different principles than those which the Law contemplates.

IV. This other system of justification is that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:

(1) It is not a system or plan where the Lord Jesus takes the part of the sinner against the Law or against God. He did not come to show that the sinner was right, and that God was wrong. He admitted most fully, and endeavored constantly to show, that God was right, and that the sinner was wrong; nor can an instance be referred to where the Saviour took the part of the sinner against God in any such sense that he endeavored to show that the sinner had not done the things charged on him, or that he had a right to do them.

(2) It is not that we are either innocent, or are declared to be innocent. God justifies the “ungodly,” Rom 4:5. We are not innocent; we never have been; we never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving. It will be always true that the justified sinner has no claims to the mercy and favor of God.

(3) It is not that we cease to be undeserving personally. He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go there admitting that he deserves eternal death, and that he is saved wholly by favor and not by desert.

(4) It is not a declaration on the part of God that we have worked out salvation, or that we have any claim for what the Lord Jesus has done. Such a declaration would not be true, and would not be made.

(5) It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people.

Moral character cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it. It is not true that we died for sin, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. It is not true that we have any merit, or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed. All the imputations of God are according to truth; and he will always reckon us to be personally undeserving and sinful. But if justification is none of these things, it may be asked, what is it? I answer - It is the declared purpose of God to regard and treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they had not sinned, on the ground of the merits of the Saviour. It is not mere pardon. The main difference between pardon and justification respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God’s future dealings with him. Pardon is a free forgiveness of past offences.

It has reference to those sins as forgiven and blotted out. It is an act of remission on the part of God. Justification has respect to the Law, and to God’s future dealings with the sinner. It is an act by which God determines to treat him hereafter as a righteous man, or as if he had not sinned. The ground or reason of this is, the merit of the Lord Jesus Christ; merit such that we can plead it as if it were our own. The rationale of it is that the Lord Jesus has accomplished by his death the same happy effects in regard to the Law and the government of God, which would have been accomplished by the death of the sinner himself. In other words, nothing would be gained to the universe by the everlasing punishment of the offender himself, which will not be secured by his salvation on the ground of the death of the Lord Jesus. He has taken our place, and died in our stead; and he has met the descending stroke of justice, which would have fallen on our own head if he had not interposed (see my notes at Isa. 53) and now the great interests of justice will be as firmly secured if we are saved, as they would be if we were lost.

The Law has been fully obeyed by one who came to save us, and as much honor has been done to it by his obedience as could have been by our own; that is, it as much shows that the Law is worthy of obedience to have it perfectly obeyed by the Lord Jesus, as it would if it were obeyed by us. It as much shows that the Law of a sovereign is worthy of obedience to have it obeyed by an only son and an heir to the crown, as it does to have it obeyed by his subjects. And it has as much shown the evil of the violation of the Law to have the Lord Jesus suffer death on the cross, as it would if the guilty had died themselves. If transgression whelm the innocent in calamity; if it extends to those who are perfectly guiltless, and inflicts pain and woe on them, it is as certainly an expression of the evil of transgression as if the guilty themselves suffer. And an impression as deep has been made of the evil of sin by the sufferings of the Lord Jesus in our stead, as if we had suffered ourselves.

He endured on the cross as intense agony as we can conceive it possible for a sinner ever to endure; and the dignity of the person who suffered, the incarnate God, is more than an equivalent for the more lengthened sorrows which the penalty of the Law exacts in hell. Besides, from the very dignity of the sufferer in our place, an impression has gone abroad on the universe more deep and important than would have been by the sufferings of the individual himself in the world of woe. The sinner who is lost will be unknown to other worlds. His name may be unheard beyond the gates of the prison of despair. The impression which will be made on distant worlds by his individual sufferings will be as a part of the aggregate of woe, and his individual sorrows may make no impression on distant worlds. But not so with him who took our place. He stood in the center of the universe. The sun grew dark, and the dead arose, and angels gazed upon the scene, and from his cross an impression went abroad to the farthest part of the universe, showing the tremendous effects of the violation of law, when not one soul could be saved from its penalty without such sorrows of the Son of God. In virtue of all this, the offender, by believing on him, may be treated as if he had not sinned; and this constitutes justification. God admits him to favor as if he had himself obeyed the Law, or borne its penalty, since as many good results will now follow from His salvation as could be derived from his punishment; and since all the additional happy results will follow which can be derived from the exercise of pardoning mercy. The character of God is thus revealed. His mercy is shown. His determination to maintain his law is evinced. The truth is maintained; and yet he shows the fulness of his mercy and the richness of his benevolence.

(The reader will find the above objections to the doctrine of imputation fully considered in the supplementary notes on Rom 4:5; see especially the note at Rom 4:3, in which it is observed, that almost every objection against the imputation of righteousness may be traced to two sources. The first of these is the idea that Christ’s righteousness becomes ours, in the same sense that it is his, namely, of personal achievement; an idea continually rejected by the friends, and as often proceeded on by the enemies, of imputation. The second source is the idea that imputation involves a transference of moral character, whereas the imputing and the infusing of righteousness are allowed to be two very different things. Now, in this place, the commentator manifestly proceeds on these mistaken views. What does he mean by “transference of the righteousness of Christ” when he says, “justification is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people?” What follows, at once explains. “Moral character,” he continues, “cannot be transferred. It adheres to the moral agent, as much as color does to the rays of light which cause it.” But this is quite aside from the subject, and proves what never had been denied. The same remarks apply with equal force to what is said about our being “always personally undeserving,” and never regarded as having ourselves actually “wrought out salvation.” These objections belong to the first source of misconception noticed above.

It has been asked a thousand times, and the question is most pertinent, How can God treat believers as innocent, if there be not some sense in which they are so? “The imputations of God are according to truth,” so is his treatment. The author tells us, that the ground of justification is the “merits of the Saviour,” which phrase he prefers throughout, to the more scriptural and more appropriate one of the righteousness of Christ; more appropriate, because the subject if forensic, belonging to judicature and dealing in matters of law; see Hervey’s reply to Wesley, vol. iv. p. 33. Yet if these merits, or this righteousness, be not imputed to us - held as ours - how can we be justified on any such ground? “I would further observe,” says Mr. Hervey, replying to Wesley in the publication just quoted, “that you have dropped the word ‘imputed,’” which inclines me to suspect you would cashier the thing. But let me ask, Sir, how can we be justified by the merits of Christ, unless they are imputed to us? Would the payment made by a surety procure a discharge for the debtor, unless it were placed to his account? It is certain the sacrifices of old could not make an atonement, unless they were imputed to each offerer respectively. This was an ordinance settled by Yahweh himself, Lev 7:18. And were not the sacrifices, was not their imputation, typical of Christ and things pertaining to Christ, the former prefiguring his all-sufficient expiation; the latter shadowing forth the way whereby we are partakers of its efficacy?

The language of President Edwards, the prince of American clergymen, indeed of theologians universally, is decisive enough, and one would think that the opinion of this master in reasoning should have its weight on the other side of the Atlantic. “It is absolutely necessary,” says he, “that in order to a sinner’s being justified, the righteousness of some other should be reckoned to his account; for it is declared, that the person justified is looked on as, in himself, ungodly: but God neither will nor can justify a person without a righteousness; for justification is manifestly a forensic term, as the word is used in scripture, and a judicial thing or the act of a judge; so that if a person should be justified without a righteousness, the judgment would not be according to truth. The sentence of justification would be a false sentence, unless there be a righteousness performed, that is, by the Judge properly looked upon as his.”

Nor are we sure, if our author’s distinction between pardon and justification be altogether accurate. By those who deny imputed righteousness, justification is frequently said to consist in the mere remission of sin. In a recent American publication, the views of the “new school party” are thus given: “Though they retain the word justification, they make it consist in mere pardon. In the eye of the Law, the believer, according to their views, is not justified at all, and never will be throughout eternity. Though on the ground of what Christ has done, God is pleased to forgive the sinner upon his believing, Christ’s righteousness is not reckoned in any sense as his, or set down to his account. He believes, and his faith or act of believing is accounted to him for righteousness; that is, faith is so reckoned to His account that God treats him as if he were righteous” - Old and New Theology, by James Wood. Now Mr. Barnes does not exactly say that justification and pardon are the same, for he makes a distinction. “The main difference between the two respects the sinner contemplated in regard to his past conduct, and to God’s future dealings with him.” “Pardon is a free forgiveness of least offences. Justification has respect to the Law and to God’s future dealings.”

But this difference is not respecting the nature of the things. It is simply a matter of time, of past and future; and justification, after all, is neither more nor less than pardon of sins past and to come. A criminal is often pardoned while his guilt is still allowed. To exalt pardon to justification there most be supposed a righteousness on the ground of which not only is sin forgiven, but the person accepted and declared legally righteous. And in this lies the main difference between the two. In the case of the believer however these are never found apart. Whoever is pardoned is at the same time justified. Earthly princes sometimes remit the punishment of crime, but seldom or never dream of honoring the criminal; but wherever God pardons, he dignifies and ennobles.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law. St. Paul, to the end of the chapter, seems to continue his discourse to St. Peter, but chiefly to the Jewish Galatians, to shew that both the Gentiles, whom the Jews called and looked upon as sinners, and also the Jews, when converted, could only hope to be justified and saved by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. --- But if while we seek to be justified in Christ, by faith in him, and by his grace, we ourselves also are found sinners, as the false doctors teach you, and not to be justified but by the ceremonies and works of the law of Moses, this blasphemous consequence must follow, that Christ is the minister and author of sin, by making us believe that by faith in him, and complying with his doctrine, we may be justified and saved. For thus we must be considered transgressors, unless we renew and build again what Christ and we have destroyed. --- For by the law I am dead to the law. That is, says St. Jerome, by the evangelical law of Christ I am dead to the ancient law and its ceremonies. Others expound it, that by the law and its types and figures, and by the predictions contained in the law, I know the Mosaical law hath now ceased, in which sense he might say, by the law I am dead to the law. --- If justice. That is, if justification and salvation be to be had, or could have been had by the works of the law; therefore Christ died in vain, and it was not necessary that he should become our Redeemer. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Knowing that a man is not justified; we knowing that a man is not absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous in the sight of God;

by the works of the law; by any kind of works done in obedience to the law of Moses, whether ceremonial or moral. For it is manifest that although this question about justification by works began about circumcision and works done in obedience to the ceremonial law, yet the determination of it extended further. For the apostle, by

the law, understands that law by which

is the knowledge of sin, Rom 3:20. Now the knowledge of sin, is neither only nor chiefly by the ceremonial law; nor did ever any of those, against whom the apostle argueth, think, that men could be justified by obedience only to the law contained in ordinances; nor could boasting be excluded, (which the apostle showeth, Rom 3:27, was God’s design in fixing the way of a sinher’s justification), if men might be justified by works done in obedience to the moral law; nor was it the ceremonial law only, the violation of which worketh wrath, Rom 4:15, or disobedience to which brought men under the curse, Gal 3:10.

But by the faith of Jesus Christ; but we are justified by believing in Christ: not by faith as it is a work of ours, for that was denied before; nor by faith as a principal efficient cause, for in that sense it is God that justifieth; nor as a meritorious cause, for so we are justified by the blood of Christ; but by faith as an instrument apprehending and applying Christ and his righteousness.

Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; we (saith the apostle) that are Jews, knowing this, have not only assented to the truth of the gospel proposition, but accepted of this way of salvation, and received the Lord Jesus; that we so doing, not trusting to the law, or any obedience of ours to it, might be absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous before God.

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; for no mortal man shall ever be absolved or declared righteous upon his own personal obedience to the law of God; being in the best imperfect, and much short of what the law requireth.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Knowing—The principle of justification—not by law, but by Christ alone—is in this verse expressed with manifold reiteration, for sake of emphasis. This was, perhaps, occasioned in some degree by the colloquy between the two apostles. The clauses knowing… Christ, are antecedent; the clauses even… law, are consequent; the clause for… justified, expresses the great Christian axiom on which the whole is based.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing (eijdotev de: see note on ver. 15); yet knowing. That a man is not justified by the works of the Law (oti ouj dikaioutai anqrwpov ejxergwn nomon); or, by works of Law; or, by works of the Law. That is, works prescribed by the Law of Moses. The verb dikaioutai is in the present tense, because the apostle is stating a general principle. The sentence, Ouj dikaioutai ejx ergwn nomou, if regard be had to the exact sense of the proposition ejx, may be supposed to mean "does not derive righteousness from works of the Law;" does not get to be justly regarded as holy, pure from guilt approvable, in consequence of any things done in obedience to God"s positive Law. The precise meaning and bearing of the aphorism will appear presently. But by the faith of Jesus Christ (ejan mh diastewv jIhsou Cristou); but only through faith of Jesus Christ. jEa, like eij mh, properly means "except," "save;" but St. Paul would have betrayed his own position if he had allowed that "works of the Law" could ever have any part whatever in procuring justification. jEan mh must, therefore, be understood here in that partially exceptive sense remarked upon in the note on, Gal_1:7 as frequently attaching to eij mh) that is, it means "but only." The apostle plainly intends to make the categorical affirmation that no man gains justification save through faith in Christ; ouj dikaioutai anqrwpov eij mh diastewv jIhsou Cristou. The variation of the proposition, dia in this clause for ejk in the preceding clause, we find again inmou) Php_3:9, "Not having a righteousness which is mine own, that which is (ejk no) of the Law i.e. derived from the Law, but that which is (diastewv) through faith of Christ." That no real difference is here intended in the sense is shown by the use immediately after of ejk in the clause, ina dikaiwqwmen ejk pistewv Cristou. For the apostle"s present argument it is immaterial whether we are said to gain righteousness through faith or from it. As Bishop Lightfoot, however, observes, "Faith is, strictly speaking, only the means, not the source of justification. The one proposition (dia) excludes this latter notion, while the other (ejk) might imply it. Besides these, we meet also with ejpistei, (Php_3:9) but never diastin, "propter fidem," which would involve or, might perhaps suggest a doctrinal error. Compare the careful language in the Latin of our Article XI, "per fidem, non propter opera. The genitive jIhsou Cristou after pistewv is paralleled by exete pistin Qeou instewv Mar_11:22, and by pi aujtou inn, Eph_3:12. Possibly the genitive was preferred here to saying eijv jIhsoun Cristo as verbally presenting the sharper antithesis to ergwn nomou. Even we (kai hJmeiv); just as any sinful outcast of a Gentile would have to do. Have believed in Jesus Christ (eijv Cristosamen); did in Christ Jesus believe. The aorist of the verb points to the time of first making Christ the object of trust. The changed order, in which our Lord"s proper name and his official designation appear in this clause compared with the preceding, and which, somewhat strangely, is ignored in our Authorized Version, does not seem to have any real significance; such variation frequently occurs in St. Paul, as e.g. 1Ti_1:15, 1Ti_1:16; 2Ti_1:8, 2Ti_1:10; stewv Eph_1:1, Eph_1:2. In the present instance it may have been dictated by the reversal of the order of the ideas, pi) and jIhsou Cristou. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ (ina dikaiwqwmen ejk pistewv Cristou). Renouncing all thought of gaining righteous ness by (or from) doing works of the Law, we fixed our faith upon Christ, in order to gain righteousness by (or from) believing in him. The form of expression does not determine the time when they expected to become righteous; but the whole complexion of the argument points to their justification following immediately upon their believing in Christ. That full recognition of fellow-believers, which is the hinge on which the discussion turns, presupposes their being already righteous through their faith. And not by the works of the Law (kaimon). This is added ex abundanti, to clench more strongly the affirmation that works of the Law have no effect in making men righteous. For by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (dioti or rather, oti ouj dikaiwqhsetai ejx ergwn nomou pasa sarx). This simply repeats the affirmation in the first clause of the verse, with only an intensified positiveness; the future tense, "shall be justified," expressing, not the time at which the act of justification takes place, but the absoluteness of the rule that no human being is to expect ever to be justified by works of the Law. In Rom_3:20 we have identically the same sentence with the addition of "in his sight." Instead, however, of the dio) found in that passage, many recent editors here give oti, there being no more difference between dioti, and oti, than between "because that" and "because." In both passages it looks as if the apostle meant to be understood as citing a locus probativus; and the addition of the words, "in his sight," in Romans indicates that the authoritative passage referred to issetai Psa_143:2, which in the Septuagint reads, jOti ouj dikaiwqh ejnwpion sou pav zwn. The clause, ejx ergwn nomou, added in both, is a comment of the apostle"s own, founded as it should seem upon the ease of the people of Israel, whom the psalmist manifestly included in his universal statement; those who had the Law yet lacked justification before God, every one; those even of them who more or less were doing its works. This verse, viewed as a statement of the individual experience of the two apostles Peter and Paul themselves, is verified with respect to tile latter by the accounts given in the Acts of his conversion. With respect to St. Peter, its verification is supplied to the reflective student of the Gospels by his realizing the process of feeling through which that apostle"s mind passed in the several situations thus indicated: "This day thou shalt deny me thrice;" "He went out and wept bitterly;" "Go and tell his disciples and Peter, he goeth before you into Galilee;" "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon;" "Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?" "They worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy." Further, the highly animated language with which, in their writings, each of these apostles St. Paul, for instance, in the Romans (5. and 8.) and Ephesians, and St. Peter in several passages of his First Epistle portrays the peace and exulting joy which Christ"s disciples experience through faith in him, is evidently drawn from their own mental history. And this happy experience of theirs was, most palpably, in no degree whatever derived from works of the Law, but solely from the grace of Christ As St. Peter had recently intimated at Jerusalem, their hearts, as truly as the hearts of their fellow-believers of the Gentiles, "God had cleansed" from the sense of guilt and pollutedness before him "by faith". (Act_15:9) It is necessary here to be quite clear as to the nature of those "works of the Law" which the apostle has now in his view. This is determined by the preceding context. The works of the Law now in question were those, the observance of which characterized a man"s "living as do the Jews" and their non-observance a man"s "living as do the Gentiles." It was the disregard of these works on the part of the Gentile believers which the Jewish Christians, whom St. Peter would fain stand well with, considered as disqualifying them from free association with themselves. So, again, when St. Peter was "living as do the Gentiles," he was viewed as setting at nought, not the moral precepts of the Law, but its positive ceremonial precepts only. It is the making that distinction between believers living as do the Gentiles and believers living as do the Jews, which Peter and the brethren from James were in effect making, that the apostle here sets himself so sternly to reprobate. It is with this view that he here asserts the principle that through faith in Christ a man is made righteous, and that through faith in Christ only can he be, these works having nothing whatever to do with it. "You Cephas," he says, "and I were living as do the Jews; no unclean sinners of Gentiles were we! And both you and I have been made righteous. And how? Not through those works of the Law, but through believing in Christ Jesus. And these Gentile brethren, from whom you are now shrinking back as if they were not good enough for us to associate with, they believe in Christ as truly as we do; they are therefore as truly righteous as we are. It is absurd for you to try to thrust upon them those works of the Law; by the works of the Law can neither they be made righteous nor yet we. So neither, on the other hand, by disregarding the works of the Law can either they or we be made sinners." This last position, that the neglect of the works of the Law does not disqualify a fellow-Christian for brotherly recognition, is plainly essential to his present argument. But this is true only of the neglect of the positive Levitical precepts of the Law; the neglect of its moral precepts does disqualify him. (1Co_5:11) Does it not seem a just inference from this course of argument, that no man whom we have reason to believe to be justified by faith in Christ is to be refused either Christian association or Church fellowship?

Justification by faith.

These words contain the pith and kernel of the Epistle. Occurring in historical narration, they strike the key-note of what is rather an expostulation and appeal to previous convictions than an original, calm argument, such as is the treatment of the same subject in the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul says he convicted St. Peter of inconsistency in requiring Gentiles to Judaize, by reminding him that even they, Jews as they were, were not justified on account of works, but through faith in Christ. By an easy and natural transition this reminiscence is made the occasion for passing from the historical to the doctrinal part of the Epistle. That great truth which called forth the protest of apostle against apostle is the truth from which the Galatians, like the Christians at Antioch, are being lured away. It is of the essence of Christianity to them as it was to their sister Church, and as it will be to the Church in all ages.

I CHRISTIANITY BRINGS JUSTIFICATION. What is justification? Some have understood it as "making righteous," others as "accounting righteous." It is plain that St. Paul does teach that real righteousness is obtained through faith (e.g. . Rom_3:21) But it is equally plain that the natural rendering of such a passage as that now before us suggests the idea of treating or reckoning as righteous. The inference is that St. Paul used the expressions in both senses. And the inference from that is, not that he was confused in thought or consciously ambiguous, but that he saw a much closer connection between the two than Protestant theology, in revulsion from Romanism, has always made apparent. Justification is the immediate result of forgiveness. God cannot think a man to be other than he is; but he can act towards him better than he deserves, can treat a sinner as only a righteous man deserves to be treated. This is justification. Now, forgiveness is personal and moral. It is not mere remission of penalties. It is reconciliation and restitution. The justification which is the consequence is not a mere external thing. It sows the seed of positive righteousness by infusing the highest motive for it. If it did not do this it would be immoral.

Justification is itself justified by its fruits. This great boon is the first grace of Christianity. Until we are forgiven and thus justified we cannot begin to serve God.

II CHRISTIANITY DECLARES THE FAILURE OF ATTEMPTING TO SECURE JUSTIFICATION THROUGH WORKS OF LAW. All the world over men have been making frantic but futile efforts in this direction. A sickening sense of failure is the invariable result. (Rom_7:24) It is like the vanishing of a nightmare to see that the whole attempt is a mistake, that God recognizes its impotence, and that he does not expect us to succeed in it.

1. We cannot be justified through works of Law, because if we do our best we are unprofitable servants, and have only done what we ought to have done. The slave whose whole time belongs to his master cannot earn anything by working overtime. Future obedience is simply obligatory on its own account; it cannot atone for past negligence.

2. We cannot renew our own nature by anything we do, seeing that we only Work outwards from our nature. While the heart is corrupt the conduct cannot be justifying.

3. There is no life in Law to infuse power for holier service. Law restrains and represses; it cannot renew and inspire. Only love and grace can do that.

4. Nevertheless, obedience to the principles of the Law is not superseded by any other method of justification. It is the justified through faith, and they only, who truly obey the Law, delighting to do the will of God.

III CHRISTIANITY PROMISES JUSTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST.

1. Faith is the means of justification, not the grounds of it. We are not justified on account of faith, but through faith. Faith is not, taken as itself, a virtue serving just as works of Law were supposed to serve. The one ground of forgiveness and renewal is the grace of God in Christ. Faith is the means of securing this, because it unites us to Christ.

2. This faith is in Christ, not in a creed. We may cast our thoughts about Christ into a creed. Yet what is necessary is not the understanding of and assent to any doctrines, but trust in a Person.

3. The faith is active trust. It is not only believing about Christ, but relying on him in conduct. For example, it is like, not only believing that a certain pillar-box belongs to the post-office, but also dropping one"s letter into it.

4. It is trust to Christ in all his relations, and therefore as much the confidence in him as our Lord and Master that directly leads to obedience, as passive reliance on him as a Saviour for the forgiveness and renewal which we can never work out for ourselves. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law - Not even of the moral, much less the ceremonial, law. But by the faith of Jesus Christ - That is, by faith in him. The name Jesus was first known by the gentiles; the name Christ by the Jews. And they are not always placed promiscuously; but generally in a more solemn way of speaking, the Apostle says, Christ Jesus; in a more familiar, Jesus Christ. Even we - And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretense to depend on their own works! Have believed - Knowing there is no other way. Because - Considering the demands of the law, and the fate of human nature, it is evident, that by the works of the law - By such an obedience as it requires. Shall no flesh living - No human creature, Jew or Gentile, be justified. Hitherto St. Paul had been considering that single question, "Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes farther, and, by citing this scripture, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral, law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, Psalm cxliii, 2, the place here referred to, "In thy sight shall no man living be justified;" which the Apostle likewise explains, Rom. iii, 19, 20, in such a manner as can agree to none but the moral law.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

For the sake of argument let us suppose that you could fulfill the Law in the spirit of the first commandment of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." It would do you no good. A person simply is not justified by the works of the Law.

The works of the Law, according to Paul, include the whole Law, judicial, ceremonial, moral. Now, if the performance of the moral law cannot justify, how can circumcision justify, when circumcision is part of the ceremonial law?

The demands of the Law may be fulfilled before and after justification. There were many excellent men among the pagans of old, men who never heard of justification. They lived moral lives. But that fact did not justify them. Peter, Paul, all Christians, live up to the Law. But that fact does not justify them. "For I know nothing by myself," says Paul, "yet am I not hereby justified." (1Co 4:4.)

The nefarious opinion of the papists, which attributes the merit of grace and the remission of sins to works, must here be emphatically rejected. The papists say that a good work performed before grace has been obtained, is able to secure grace for a person, because it is no more than right that God should reward a good deed. When grace has already been obtained, any good work deserves everlasting life as a due payment and reward for merit. For the first, God is no debtor, they say; but because God is good and just, it is no more than right (they say) that He should reward a good work by granting grace for the service. But when grace has already been obtained, they continue, God is in the position of a debtor, and is in duty bound to reward a good work with the gift of eternal life. This is the wicked teaching of the papacy.

Now, if I could perform any work acceptable to God and deserving of grace, and once having obtained grace my good works would continue to earn for me the right and reward of eternal life, why should I stand in need of the grace of God and the suffering and death of Christ? Christ would be of no benefit to me. Christ’s mercy would be of no use to me.

This shows how little insight the pope and the whole of his religious coterie have into spiritual matters, and how little they concern themselves with the spiritual health of their forlorn flocks. They cannot believe that the flesh is unable to think, speak, or do anything except against God. If they could see evil rooted in the nature of man, they would never entertain such silly dreams about man’s merit or worthiness.

With Paul we absolutely deny the possibility of self merit. God never yet gave to any person grace and everlasting life as a reward for merit. The opinions of the papists are the intellectual pipe-dreams of idle pates, that serve no other purpose but to draw men away from the true worship of God. The papacy is founded upon hallucinations.

The true way of salvation is this. First, a person must realize that he is a sinner, the kind of a sinner who is congenitally unable to do any good thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." Those who seek to earn the grace of God by their own efforts are trying to please God with sins. They mock God, and provoke His anger. The first step on the way to salvation is to repent.

The second part is this. God sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we may live through His merit. He was crucified and killed for us. By sacrificing His Son for us God revealed Himself to us as a merciful Father who donates remission of sins, righteousness, and life everlasting for Christ’s sake. God hands out His gifts freely unto all men. That is the praise and glory of His mercy.

The scholastics explain the way of salvation in this manner. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed God pours charity into that person. They call it "charity infused." This charity is supposed to remain in the heart. They get wild when they are told that this quality of the heart cannot justify a person.

They also claim that we are able to love God by our own natural strength, to love God above all things, at least to the extent that we deserve grace. And, say the scholastics, because God is not satisfied with a literal performance of the Law, but expects us to fulfill the Law according to the mind of the Lawgiver, therefore we must obtain from above a quality above nature, a quality which they call "formal righteousness."

We say, faith apprehends Jesus Christ. Christian faith is not an inactive quality in the heart. If it is true faith it will surely take Christ for its object. Christ, apprehended by faith and dwelling in the heart, constitutes Christian righteousness, for which God gives eternal life.

In contrast to the doting dreams of the scholastics, we teach this: First a person must learn to know himself from the Law. With the prophet he will then confess: "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." And, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." And, "against thee, thee only, have I sinned."

Having been humbled by the Law, and having been brought to a right estimate of himself, a man will repent. He finds out that he is so depraved, that no strength, no works, no merits of his own will ever deliver him from his guilt. He will then understand the meaning of Paul’s words: "I am sold under sin"; and "they are all under sin."

At this state a person begins to lament: "Who is going to help me?" In due time comes the Word of the Gospel, and says: "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for your sins. Remember, your sins have been imposed upon Christ."

In this way are we delivered from sin. In this way are we justified and made heirs of everlasting life.

In order to have faith you must paint a true portrait of Christ. The scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. But Christ is no law giver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins.

Here let me say, that these three things, faith, Christ, and imputation of righteousness, are to be joined together. Faith takes hold of Christ. God accounts this faith for righteousness.

This imputation of righteousness we need very much, because we are far from perfect. As long as we have this body, sin will dwell in our flesh. Then, too, we sometimes drive away the Holy Spirit; we fall into sin, like Peter, David, and other holy men. Nevertheless we may always take recourse to this fact, "that our sins are covered," and that "God will not lay them to our charge." Sin is not held against us for Christ’s sake. Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation.

After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. "Since you have found Christ by faith," we say, "begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ."

When crosses and afflictions come our way, we bear them patiently. "For Christ’s yoke is easy, and His burden is light." When sin has been pardoned, and the conscience has been eased of its dreadful load, a Christian can endure all things in Christ.

To give a short definition of a Christian: A Christian is not somebody chalks sin, because of his faith in Christ. This doctrine brings comfort to consciences in serious trouble. When a person is a Christian he is above law and sin. When the Law accuses him, and sin wants to drive the wits out of him, a Christian looks to Christ. A Christian is free. He has no master except Christ. A Christian is greater than the whole world.

VERSE 16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified.

The true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law.

We know that we must also teach good works, but they must be taught in their proper turn, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of justification.

Here the question arises by what means are we justified? We answer with Paul, "By faith only in Christ are we pronounced righteous, and not by works." Not that we reject good works. Far from it. But we will not allow ourselves to be removed from the anchorage of our salvation.

The Law is a good thing. But when the discussion is about justification, then is no time to drag in the Law. When we discuss justification we ought to speak of Christ and the benefits He has brought us.

Christ is no sheriff. He is "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Joh 1:29.)

VERSE 16. That we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law.

We do not mean to say that the Law is bad. Only it is not able to justify us. To be at peace with God, we have need of a far better mediator than Moses or the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.

So far, the words of Paul were addressed to Peter. Now Paul turns to the Galatians and makes this summary statement:

VERSE 16. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

By the term "flesh" Paul does not understand manifest vices. Such sins he usually calls by their proper names, as adultery, fornication, etc. By "flesh" Paul understands what Jesus meant in the third chapter of John, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh". (Joh 3:6.) "Flesh" here means the whole nature of man, inclusive of reason and instincts. "This flesh," says Paul, "is not justified by the works of the law."

The papists do not believe this. They say, "A person who performs this good deed or that, deserves the forgiveness of his sins. A person who joins this or that holy order, has the promise of everlasting life."

To me it is a miracle that the Church, so long surrounded by vicious sects, has been able to survive at all. God must have been able to call a few who in their failure to discover any good in themselves to cite against the wrath and judgment of God, simply took to the suffering and death of Christ, and were saved by this simple faith.

Nevertheless God has punished the contempt of the Gospel and of Christ on the part of the papists, by turning them over to a reprobate state of mind in which they reject the Gospel, and receive with gusto the abominable rules, ordinances, and traditions of men in preference to the Word of God, until they went so far as to forbid marriage. God punished them justly, because they blasphemed the only Son of God.

This is, then, our general conclusion: "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. [If thou, being a Jew to begin with, livest, as is shown by your past custom, like a Gentile, and not like the Jews, by what right do you demand, by your changed custom, that the Gentiles should live like Jews? For even you and I, both being born Jews, and both taking the best view of ourselves possible, and regarding ourselves after the most untempered and unwarranted pride and prejudice of our race as infinitely superior to the degraded heathen (as we were wont to call them), both in righteousness and acceptability to God, even we, I say, despite all this, were forced to see and acknowledge that a man is not justified by those works of the law in which we trusted, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we believed on Christ Jesus that we might obtain the justification that comes through him, rather than the vain and insufficient justification of the law, for the Scripture itself ( Psa_143:2 ) says," By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. Knowing. There were certain facts that both of them knew. One of them was that men were justified (that is, forgiven) not by the works of the law (of Moses), but by the faith of Jesus Christ; that is, by the gospel. Both had believed on Christ in order that they might be justified. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. This passage, quoted in Rom. 3:20, is found in Psalm 143:2.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

16. δὲ is omitted by the Text. Rec. with ADc.

16. εἰδότες. The acquired knowledge (γνόντες, Gal 4:9) has become so intimate a part of his elementary knowledge that St Paul can write εἰδότες (Gal 4:8) even here.

δὲ. See notes on Textual Criticism.

It suggests the contrast to natural privileges and prejudices.

ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος. δικ. the first occurrence of this word (or its derivatives) which is so characteristic of this epistle. It is used throughout in its “forensic” sense of “pronouncing righteous,” “justifying,” not in the ethical sense of “making righteous,” a meaning which some scholars think it never possesses. See Sanday and Headlam, Rom. pp. 30 sq.

ἐξ. Three times in this verse the thought is of the source (whether false or true) of “righteousness,” “justification,” but in Gal 2:17 of the one Sphere in which it is to be found (ἐν), and both in the next clause and in Gal 2:21 of the means (διά), true or false, by which it is obtained.

ἔργων νόμου. The genitive νόμου is neither subjective, as though the Law produced works, nor objective, as though the aim of works were to fulfil the Law, but possessive, works which belong to, and are required by, the Law (Sieffert). On the meaning of νόμος without the article see Appendix, Note E.

ἐὰν μὴ, “save,” R.V. rightly as a verbal translation, though misleading. To be joined with οὐ δικαιοῦται. “But only” gives the sense. St Paul had intended to write οὐ δικαιοῦται ἐὰν μή, but to make his meaning clearer inserted ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, wrecking the grammar. Cf. Joh 5:19 and εἰ μή Gal 1:19. Similarly in Rev 21:27 the words εἰ μὴ mark the exception “not to ὁ ποιῶν βδέλυγμα καὶ ψεῦδος but to all who seek to enter, as if the sentence had run οὐ μὴ εἰσὲλθῃ οὐδείς, εἰ μή κ.τ.λ.” (Swete).

The Roman Catholic commentators join ἐὰν μή to ἐξ ἔργ. νόμ. explaining that we are justified by works done by means of faith. But this is to make under other terms that mixture of Law and Grace against which this epistle is directed, cf. Gal 3:11-12. Compare the Introduction, c. 6.

διὸ πίστεως Χρ. Ἰης., “by means of faith in Christ Jesus.”

καὶ ἡμεῖς, “even we” with all our privileges, taking up the ἡμεῖς of Gal 2:15.

εἰς Χρ. Ἰης. ἐπιστεύσαμεν. πιστεύω εἰς, though common in St John’s writings, occurs in St Paul’s only here and Rom 10:14, Php 1:29. It has, as it seems, with him the same strong sense as with St John, to cease to lean on oneself and to place one’s entire trust on Christ. Observe the “ingressive” aorist, like ἐβασίλευσε … Γύγης, Gyges became king, Herodot. I. 13 (Gildersleeve, § 239).

ἴνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ. ἐκ is stronger than the preceding διά, and excludes all sources of justification other than faith on Christ.

The omission of Ἰησοῦ may be due only to a wish to avoid repetition, but perhaps to a desire to emphasize the thought that a true Jew finds his justification in Messiah. Cf. Gal 2:4 note on ἐν Χρ. Ἰης.

καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, “and not from works of the Law” (vide supra). No, not even from the moral works. Indeed, from one point of view, the burden of the Law lies in its moral, not its ceremonial side (cf. Rom 7:7 sqq.). “Neque per se intolerabile jugum erat lex ceremonialis, sed robur ex morali habuit, Acts 15. Itaque lex moralis est legalior, ut ita dicam, quam ceremonialis, quae simul erat quasi evangelium elementare et praeliminare” (Bengel).

This is a hard saying to Jews who wonder that St Paul can speak of the burden of the Law, when their Rabbis rejoice in learning a fresh duty of it for their accomplishment (Güdemann, Jüd. Apologetik, 1906, pp. 190 sq., cf. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 1909, pp. 149 sqq.), as though the Law were a bundle of laws by which to acquire merit. But St Paul is thinking of the inner demands on conscience and the soul made by the Law as the revelation of holiness, and the Rabbis show little sense of humility or self-knowledge.

Observe the difference of St Paul’s language from 4 (2) Ezr 9:7 “every one that shall be saved, and shall be able to escape by his works, or by faith, whereby he hath believed, shall be preserved,” or 2Es 13:23 “even such as have works, and faith toward the Almighty” (see examples of pre-Christian Jewish statements of the value of faith in Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 1906, pp. 223 sqq.). Compare the notes on Gal 3:10.

ὅτι. Introducing a proof from Scripture for his assertion of the insufficiency of the Law.

ἐξ ἔργ. νόμ. “from the source of works of the Law.”

οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. Psalms 143 :(142) 2. Literally “there shall not be justified—any flesh at all.” A Hebraism for our more prosaic “no flesh shall be justified.” See Winer-Schmiedel, § 26. 10. πᾶσα σάρξ is itself a Hebraism for “all men,” Gen 6:12.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Justified [δικαιουται] . See on Rom 3:20, 26. The meaning to declare or pronounce righteous cannot be consistently carried through Paul 's writings in the interest of a theological fiction of imputed righteousness. See, for example, Rom 4:25; 1Co 6:11; and all passages where the word is used to describe justification by works of the law, as here, chapter Gal 3:11; Gal 5:4. If one is a real righteousness, founded upon his conformity to the law. Why is the righteousness of faith any less a real righteousness ?

By the works of the law [εξ εργων νομου] . Lit. out of the works, etc. Comp. Rom 3:20. Works are characteristic of a legal dispensation. Paul often puts "works" alone as representing legal righteousness. See Rom 4:2, 6; Rom 9:11, 32; Rom 11:6; Eph 2:9.

But by faith [εαν μη] . As the Greek stands, it would read, "Is not justified by the works of the law save through faith." So, unfortunately, Rev. This would mean, as the Romish interpreters, not through works of the law except they be done through faith in Christ, and would ascribe justification to works which grow out of faith. Paul means that justification is by faith alone. The use of ejan mh is to be thus explained : A man is not justified by the works of the law : (he is not justified) except by faith in Jesus Christ. Ean mh retains its exceptive force, but the exception refers only to the verb. Comp. eij mh in Mt 12:4; Luk 4:26, 27; Gal 1:19; Rev 21:27.

Flesh [σαρξ] . See on Rom 7:5. For no flesh see on Rom 3:20.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.