Galatians 2:21

Gal_2:21

I do not frustrate the grace of God.

Salvation by works a criminal doctrine

1. The idea of salvation by the merit of our own works is exceedingly insinuating. When it gains the least foothold, it soon makes great advances. The only way to deal with it is to stamp it out. War to the knife. No surrender.

2. This error is exceedingly plausible. Said to encourage virtue. But where will you find a devout and upright man who glories in his own works?

3. Self-righteousness is natural to our fallen humanity. Hence it is the essence of all false religions.

4. This erroneous idea arises partly from ignorance:

(1) of the law of God;

(2) of what holiness is;

(3) of themselves.

5. It arises also from pride.

6. And from unbelief.

7. It is evidently evil, for it makes light of sin.

8. No comfort in it for the fallen. It gives to the elder son all that his proud heart can claim, but for the prodigal it has no welcome. What, then, is to become of the guilty? (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Frustration of the grace of God

1. He that hopes to be saved by his own righteousness rejects the grace or free favour of God, regards it as useless, and in that sense frustrates it. If we can keep the law and claim to be accepted as a matter of debt, it is plain that we need not turn supplicants and crave for mercy. Grace is a superfluity where merit can be proved

2. He makes the grace of God to be at least a secondary thing. Many think they are to merit as much as they can, and that God will make up for the rest by His grace. Every man his own saviour, and Jesus Christ and His grace make-weights for our deficiences.

3. He who trusts in himself, his feelings, his works, his prayers, or in anything except the grace of God, virtually gives up trusting in the grace of God altogether. God will never share the work with mans merit. You must either have salvation wholly because you deserve it, or wholly because God graciously bestows it though you do not deserve it.

4. This doctrine takes off the sinner from confidence in Christ. So long as a man can maintain any hope in himself, he will never look to the Redeemer.

5. This doctrine robs God of His glory. If man can save himself, then the glory is his own, not Gods. What an awful crime, then, is this doctrine of salvation by human merit. It is a sin so gross that even the heathen cannot commit it.. They have never heard of the grace of God, and therefore they cannot put a slight upon it: when they perish it will be with a far lighter doom than those who have been told that God is gracious and ready to pardon, and yet turn on their heel and wickedly boast of innocence, and pretend to be clean in the sight of God. It is a sin which devils cannot commit. With all the obstinancy of their rebellion, they can never reach to this. They have never had the sweet notes of free grace and dying love ringing in their ears, and therefore they have never refused the heavenly invitation. What has never been presented to their acceptance cannot be the object of their rejection. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

I. Two great crimes are contained in the doctrine of self-righteousness.

1. The frustration of the grace of God. The self-righteous

(1) reject it as baseless;

(2) make it at least a secondary thing;

(3) virtually give up trusting in it;

(4) renounce their confidence in Christ;

(5) rob God of His glory.

2. The making of Christ to be dead is vain.

(1) Christs finished work is rendered imperfect;

(2) the covenant sealed with Christs death is rejected;

(3) each person in the Trinity is sinned against;

(4) fallen man is sinned against, who can have no mercy but; through Christ;

(5) the saints are sinned against, who have no hope but through Christ.

II. The two crimes are committed by many people. By--

1. Triflers with the gospel.

2. The senseless as to guilt.

3. The despairing.

4. Those who have misgivings about the power of the gospel.

5. Apostates.

III. No true believer will be guilty of these crimes. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Folly of human righteousness

How can a man trust in his own righteousness? It is like seeking shelter under ones own shadow. We may stoop to the very ground; and the lower we bend, we still find that our shadow is beneath us. But if a man flee to the shadow of a great rock, or of a widespreading tree, he will find abundant shelter from the rays of the noonday sun. So human merits are unavailing; and Christ alone can save. (Dr. Medhurst.)

Rejection of Gods grace

The rejection of the grace of God may take place

(1) by a denial of the perfect satisfaction of Christ;

(2) by setting alongside of it our own merits, worthiness and righteousness, as popery does in doctrine, and many Protestants do in fact;

(3) by abusing this grace to favour presumption, and to supersede sanctification;

(4) when even sincere souls, in the feeling of their unworthiness, are much too timorous to appropriate grace to themselves, and think they must first have arrived at this or that degree of holiness, before grace can avail them anything;

(5) when tempted ones from a lack of feeling conclude that they have fallen out of grace again. (Starke.)

Righteousness

I. The insufficiency of the law to promote righteousness.

1. It was never instituted for that purpose.

(1) It is a standard of righteousness,

(2) and therefore a constant and irritating reminder of unrighteousness, and

(3) has no moral power.

2. Men have never found righteousness by the law.

(1) All have sinned and broken it.

(2) The best morality falls below its requirements.

3. On the assumption of its sufficiency

(1) Gods grace is frustrated;

(2) Christ is dead in vain.

II. Hence the necessity of some better provision for the promotion of righteousness.

1. Men yearn after it.

2. It is Gods will that man should be righteous or He would never have made him so.

3. Righteousness is the law and harmony of the universe which sin has broken.

III. God has made this provision in the death of Christ.

1. That death has atoned for sin, and when accepted by faith past unrighteousness is remitted and man is justified (Rom_3:25).

2. By that death the Holy Spirit is secured who makes man actually righteous, and gives the power to fulfil all righteousness.

The frustration of Gods grace

If people can make themselves good by doing what is called their duty, then the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus Christ constitute the greatest mistake that ever was made in the universe. If a man can be really good, can make himself all that God can possibly desire him to be, of his own motion and will and by the resources of his own invention and energy, then the mediation of Jesus Christ was a great and generous expenditure of pain and life and sorrow, and an expenditure that ended in nothing. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Divine grace does not dispense with conditions but with merit

While in the case of two mutinous seamen who, having long resisted every effort on the part of the captain to reform them, have at last, through their continued intemperance, fallen overboard, one grasps the rope thrown out by his masters mercy, and is saved, while the other rejects it, or depends on his own efforts and is drowned; has the former ground to boast that he is his own saviour? There was assuredly more mad wilfulness in his hardened companion who refused the proffered aid; but the recklessness of the latter imparts no merit to the former. While the one can ascribe his deliverence to nothing in himself moving his captain thereunto, but solely to his masters compassion, the other had equal mercy shown to him, but his destruction was entirely his own doing. When the prodigal returned would his sense of the entire freeness of his fathers goodness and of his own absolute demerit have been at all diminished by learning that another brother who had run the same course of riot as himself refused to cast himself into those arms by which he himself had been so warmly welcomed? Would the greater obduracy and infatuated perverseness of his brother extenuate, in the pardoned sons eyes, his own guilt, or lead him less to ascribe his own forgiveness to free unmerited grace? (Principal Forbes.)

Morality not righteousness

Let the law stand for any attempt at duty doing with a view to self-salvation. I do not say that a man cannot wash his hands; I am not here to reason that it is not possible for a man to put on a good deal of external decoration. I believe that it is quite within his power to say to some of his appetites, Now you shall be starved for six months. I will touch no intoxicant for the rest of my life, and never more go into any associations which I believe to be corrupting, and will do my best to conform to the highest moral standard. What more can you expect me to do? Well, what have you done? Outside work; you have washed your hands, but you have not cleansed your heart. As between man and man you have done a good deal. But seeing that the question is not primarily between man and man, but between you and God, you have done nothing but confound righteousness with morality. (J. Parker, D. D.)

The moral consolation that righteousness is not of the law but through Christ

If Satan, the great Judaizer as well as antinomian, tempts us to trust in our own endeavours we fly to the cross. If conscience, the advocate of Sinai, reminds us of our multiplied offences and failures we say, Were it ten thousand times worse there can be no condemnation. Hardest of all, if, in times of despondency our innumerable and peculiar sins, not against the law, but against the very gospel that saves from the law, are pressed upon our spirits, we can still take refuge in the cross and think, I have paid my own debt in Him who died not only to discharge the obligation to clerical law, but also to expiate offences against the gospel itself, who atoned for sins against the atonement, and suffered on the cross for dishonour done to the very cross on which He suffered; and there is, or will be, a time to every one of us, when amidst the thick darkness that divides time from eternity, we shall find no greater consolation than this: I am crucified with Christ; I do not frustrate the grace of God; Christ hath not died for me in vain. (W. B. Pope, D. D.)

Grace is a free gift

A benevolent rich man had a very poor neighbour, to whom he sent this message: I wish to make you the gift of a farm. The poor man was pleased with the idea of having a farm, but was too proud at once to receive it as a gift. So he thought of the matter much and anxiously. His desire to have a home of his own was daily growing stronger; but his pride was great. At length, he determined to visit him who had made the offer. But a strange delusion about this time seized him; for he imagined that he had a bag of gold. So he came with his bag, and said to the rich man, I have received your message, and have come to see you. I wish to own the farm; but I wish to pay for it. I will give you a bag of gold for it. Let us see your gold, said the owner of the farm. Look again: I donor think it is even silver. The poor man looked, tears stood in his eyes, and his delusion seemed to be gone; and he said, Alas! I am undone: it is not even copper; it is but ashes. How poor I am! I wish to own that farm; but I have nothing to pay. Will you give me the farm? The rich man replied, Yes: that was my first and only offer. Will you accept it on such terms? With humility, but with eagerness, the poor man said, Yes: and a thousand blessings on you for your kindness! (W. S. Plumer, D. D.)

Grace must not be frustrated

I was once invited out to tea by a poor widow, and I took something in my pocket. But Ill never do it again. It was two cakes; and, when I brought them out and laid them on the table, she picked them up and flung them out into the street, and said, I asked you to tea; I didnt ask you to provide tea for me. And so with Christ. He asks, He provides, and He wants nothing but ourselves; and if we take aught else Hell reject it. We can only sup with Him when we come as we are. Who will accept salvation? Wholl say, I take the blessing from above, And wonder at Thy boundless love? (J. W. Ackrill.)

.

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

2:21 Perhaps Paul’s opponents in Galatia suggested that his message would make God’s grace to Israel meaningless, since it was connected with the law (cp. Rom 3:1-2, 31). Instead, it was Paul’s opponents who treated the grace of God as meaningless by voiding the need for Christ to die.

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

Gal 2:21. Οὐκ ἀθετῶ, I do not frustrate) As the Judaizing teachers do, but embrace it with my whole soul.—τὴν Χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ, the grace of God) by which Christ died for us.—εἰ γὰρ, for if) Christ is our righteousness in Himself; not in so far as [inasmuch as] He fulfils the righteousness of the law in us. This is evident from the consequence which Paul here shows would follow, if the case were otherwise.—ἀπέθανεν, He died) and so rose again. There would have been no need of these, if righteousness had been from the law.

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

Gal_2:21. Negative sideopposed to an antagonistic Judaismof the life which Paul (from Gal_2:19) has described as his own. By this negative, with the grave reason assigned for it, εἰ γάρ κ.τ.λ., the perverse conduct of Peter is completely condemned.

I do not annul (as is done by again asserting the validity of the law) the grace of God (which has manifested itself through the atoning death of Christ).

ἀθετῶ] as in Gal_3:15, Luk_7:30, 1Co_1:19, 1Ti_5:12, Heb_10:28 : make of none effect; see the sequel. It is here the annullingpractically involved in the Judaistic coursesof the grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered inoperative and cannot make righteous, if righteousness is furnished by the law. The rejection of grace (Vulgate and others, abjicio) which is involved in this, is a practical rejection.[110] As to ἀθετεῖν generally, which does not occur until after Polybius, see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. p. 12.

εἰ γάρ κ.τ.λ.] justifies what has just been said, οὐκ ἀθετῶ.

διὰ νόμου] through the law, namely, as the institute which brings about justification by virtue of the works done in harmony with it (comp. on Gal_3:11). This is emphatically prefixed, so that Χριστός corresponds in the apodosis.

δωρεάν] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., Piscator), a meaning which it never has either in classical authors (in whom it occurs in the sense of gratis only) or in the LXX., but: without reason, without cause, as 1Sa_19:5, Psa_34:8 (not Job_1:9): comp. Joh_15:25; Sir_20:21; Sir_29:6 f.; Ignat. Trall. 10, δωρεὰν οὖν ἀποθνήσκω. Chrysostom justly says: περιττὸς ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θάνατος, which was the very act of the grace which desired to justify men. This death would have taken place unnecessarily; it would have been, as it were, an act of superfluity (comp. Holsten), if that which it was intended to effect were attainable by way of the law. Erasmus aptly remarks, est autem ratiocinatio ab impossibili. Observe the exclusive expression of the clause assigning the reason of οὐκ ἀθετῶ, which allows of no half-and-half division of justification between law and grace.

[110] So that ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις, Rom_11:6.

Note.

Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the impression which his speech made on Peter. Its candour, resolution, and striking force of argument would, however, be the less likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing that the latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Act_15:7 ff.), and had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by connivance from fear of men (Gal_2:13). But as, according to this view, an opposition of principle between the two apostles cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his followers), we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence at Antioch had any lasting and far-reaching consequences; for it simply had reference to a moral false step taken in opposition to Peters own better judgment, and the scandal arising therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, that, if known at all by Luke, it might well have remained unmentioned in Actsconsidering the more comprehensive historical destination of that workwithout suggesting any suspicion that the absence of mention arose from any intentional concealment (comp. on Acts 15). Such a concealment is but one of the numberless dishonest artifices of which the author of· Acts has been accused, ever since certain persons have thought that they recognised in our epistle the mutely eloquent accuser of the Book of Acts (Schwegler), which is alleged to throw a veil of concealment over the occurrences at Jerusalem and Antioch (Baur, Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2).

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 2:21 . Christ died in order that men might live before God by His grace in spite of a broken Law; if men could keep the Law of themselves and live, there would be no call for grace, and the death of Christ would be proved a useless sacrifice. διὰ νόμου . Law was never, like faith, instrumental to justification ( cf. Gal 2:16 ). Accordingly, Paul never speaks of justification through Law, but either ἐκ νόμου or ἐν νόμῳ . Here, as in Gal 2:19 , διὰ νόμου really denotes a legal environment, and the verse argues that if righteousness was really within men’s reach under a legal dispensation, then there was no occasion for the death of Christ at all.

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

The second argument taken of an absurdity: If men may be justified by the Law, then was it not necessary for Christ to die.

For there was no cause why he should do so.

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

I do not frustrate the grace of God--I do not make it void, as thou, Peter, art doing by Judaizing.

for--justifying the strong expression "frustrate," or "make void."

is dead in vain--Greek, "Christ died needlessly," or "without just cause." Christ's having died, shows that the law has no power to justify us; for if the law can justify or make us righteous, the death of Christ is superfluous [CHRYSOSTOM].

Next: Galatians Chapter 3

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 21. I do not frustrate] ουκ αθετω. I do not contemn, despise, or render useless, the grace of God-the doctrine of Christ crucified; which I must do if I preach the necessity of observing the law.

For if righteousness] If justification and salvation come by an observance of the law, then Christ is dead in vain; his death is useless if an observance of the law can save us; but no observance of the law can save us, and therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ.

1. THE account of the prevarication of Peter in the preceding chapter teaches us a most useful lesson. Let him who assuredly standeth take heed lest he fall. No person in a state of probation is infallible; a man may fall into sin every moment; and he will, if he do not walk with God. Worldly prudence and fleshly wisdom would have concealed this account of the prevarication of Peter; but God tells truth. This the fountain of it; and from him we are to expect not only nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth. If the Gospel were not of God we had never heard of the denial and prevarication of Peter, nor of the contention between Paul and Barnabas. And these accounts are recorded, not that men may justify or excuse their own delinquencies by them, but that they may avoid them; for he must be inexcusable who, with these histories before his eyes, ever denies his Master, or acts the part of a hypocrite. Had the apostles acted in concert to impose a forgery on the world as a Divine revelation, the imposture would have now come out. The falling out of the parties would have led to a discovery of the cheat. This relation, therefore, is an additional evidence of the truth of the Gospel.

2. On, I through the law am dead to the law, c., pious Quesnel makes the following useful reflections:

"The ceremonial law, which is no more than a type and shadow of him, destroys itself by showing us Jesus Christ, who is the truth and the substance. The moral law, by leaving us under our own inability under sin and the curse, makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart, and of a Saviour to give it. The law is for the old man, as to its terrible and servile part and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross as well as the old man. The new man, and the new law, require a new sacrifice. What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ? They in whom this sacrifice lives, do themselves live to God alone; but none can live to him except by faith; and this life of faith consists in dying with Christ to the things of the present world, and in expecting, as co-heirs with him, the blessings of the eternal world. And who can work all this in us but only he who lives in us? That man has arrived to a high degree of mortification, who can say Christ liveth in me, and I am crucified to the world. Such a one must have renounced not only earthly things, but his own self also."

3. Is there, or can there be, any well grounded hope of eternal life but what comes through the Gospel? In vain has the ingenuity of man tortured itself for more than 5000 years, to find out some method of mending the human heart: none has been discovered that even promised any thing likely to be effectual. The Gospel of Christ not only mends but completely cures and new makes infected nature. Who is duly apprised of the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What would it be were this light extinguished? Blessed Lord! let neither infidelity nor false doctrine rise up to obscure this heavenly splendour!

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

21. I do not reject. There is great emphasis in this expression; for how dreadful is the ingratitude manifested in despising the grace of God, so invaluable in itself, and obtained at such a price! Yet this heinous offense is charged against the false apostles, who were not satisfied with having Christ alone, but introduced some other aids towards obtaining salvation. For, if we do not renounce all other hopes, and embrace Christ alone, we reject the grace of God. And what resource is left to the man, who “puts from him” the grace of God, “and judges himself unworthy of everlasting life?” (Acts 13:46.)

Christ is dead in vain There would then have been no value in the death of Christ; or, Christ would have died without any reward; for the reward of his death is, that he has reconciled us to the Father by making an atonement for our sins. Hence it follows, that we are justified by his grace, and, therefore, not by works. The Papists explain this in reference to the ceremonial law; but who does not see that it applies to the whole law? If we could produce a righteousness of our own, then Christ has suffered in vain; for the intention of his sufferings was to procure it for us, and what need was there that a work which we could accomplish for ourselves should be obtained from another? If the death of Christ be our redemption, then we were captives; if it be satisfaction, we were debtors; if it be atonement, we were guilty; if it be cleansing, we were unclean. On the contrary, he who ascribes to works his sanctification, pardon, atonement, righteousness, or deliverance, makes void the death of Christ.

This argument, we shall perhaps be told, is of no weight against those who propose to unite the grace of Christ with works; which, it is universally admitted, was done by the false apostles. The two doctrines, it is alleged, stand together, that righteousness is by the law, and that we are redeemed by the death of Christ. True; supposing it were granted that a part of our righteousness is obtained by works, and a part comes from grace. But such theology, it may easily be proved, was unknown to Paul. His argument with his opponents is either conclusive or inconclusive. If any blasphemer shall dare to accuse him of bad reasoning, a powerful defense is at hand; for that justification in the sight of God of which he treats, is not what men may imagine to be sufficient, but what is absolutely perfect.

But we are not now called to plead in behalf of Paul against blasphemers, who venture to speak in reproachful language of the Holy Spirit himself. Our present business is with the Papists. They ridicule us, when we argue with Paul that, if righteousness come by works, Christ is dead in vain. They imagine it to be a beautiful reply, with which their sophists furnish them, that Christ merited for us the first grace, that is, the opportunity of meriting; and that the merit of his death concurs with the satisfactions of works for the daily pardon of sins. Let them ridicule Paul, whose language we quote. They must refute him before they can refute us. We know that he had to deal with men, who did not entirely reject the grace of Christ, but ascribed the half of salvation to works. In opposition to them he argues, that “if righteousness is by the law, then Christ is dead in vain;” and by so doing, he certainly does not allow to works one drop of righteousness. Between those men and the Papists there is no difference; and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.

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.

(21) In thus attaching himself devotedly to Christ, the Christian escapes the charge of refusing and thwarting the free gift of justification which God has offered to him in His Son. He has made his choice of Christ, and not of the Law. On the other hand, if he had chosen the Law, and gone to it, and not to Christ, in his search for righteousness, he would have practically declared the death of Christ to be a useless and unnecessary sacrifice.

Frustrate.—An exactly literal translation of the Greek word, which means “to render nugatory or ineffectual.” The grace of God goes forth with a certain mission to perform; but the Judaising party, by still clinging to the Law, prevented it from taking effect, and made it “return void” unto its Giver.

If righteousness come by the law.—What all men seek is justification in the sight of God. This is given to the just or righteous. But there were two ways of becoming thus just or righteous. The Law professed to make righteous those who complied with its provisions. But this was only a profession, for no one could really keep the Law. The Christian, therefore, rightly falls back upon faith in Christ, which brings him both an imputed righteousness, and also, in part, at least, a real righteousness. A deep and genuine faith in Christ is allowed to atone for the many unavoidable breaches of the Law, and that faith by degrees operates a real and vital change in the character and life of the man.

Then Christ is dead in vain.—If the Law had been enough to give actual righteousness to its votaries, and with righteousness the judicial declaration of freedom from guilt, then there would have been nothing for Christ to die for. His death would have had no object and been of no benefit to mankind.

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

21. The word rendered ‘frustrate’ is used in reference both to persons and things, in the sense of setting at naught, treating with utter disregard and contempt. In ch. Gal_3:15 it is used of setting aside a covenant. Our Lord speaks of those who despise, treat with neglect His servants, as despising Him, Luk_10:16. In Heb_10:28 it is used of a presumptuous violation of the law of Moses.

I do not treat the grace of God with contempt, as if it were a thing of nought, as do the Judaizers. It was that grace which prompted the unspeakable gift, the all-sufficient sacrifice. And if man can be justified by his own obedience, the death of Christ is unnecessary.

is dead in vain] Rather, “died without cause”. Not, ‘in vain’, but gratuitously, without any adequate purpose or result. Deny, or ignore the atoning efficacy of that death, and it becomes aimless and superfluous.

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.

I do not frustrate the grace of God,.... Or "cast it away", as the Vulgate Latin version reads it; or "deny it", as the Syriac and Arabic; or "despise, reject, and make it void", as other versions; meaning either the grace of the Son of God in giving himself for him, just mentioned by him; or the particular doctrine of grace, justification, he is speaking of, as proceeding from the grace of God, upon the foot of the righteousness of Christ; or the whole Gospel, all and each of which would be denied, despised, rejected, made null and void, be in vain, fallen and departed from, should justification be sought for by the works of the law: but this the apostle did not do, and therefore did not frustrate the grace of God: which to do would be to act the most ungenerous and ungrateful part to God, and Christ, and to that love and grace which are so largely displayed in the free justification of a sinner.

For if righteousness come by the law; if a justifying righteousness is to be attained unto by the works of the law, or men can be justified by their obedience to it,

then Christ is dead in vain; there was no necessity for his dying: he died without any true reason, or just cause; he died to bring in a righteousness which might have been brought in without his death, and so his blood and life might have been spared, his sufferings and death being entirely unnecessary; which to say is to cast contempt upon the wisdom, love, and grace of God in this matter, and to offer the greatest indignity to the person, character, sufferings, and death of Christ. Wherefore it may be strongly concluded, that there is no righteousness by the law of works, nor to be attained that way, otherwise Christ had never died; and that justification is solely and alone by his righteousness.

Next: Galatians Chapter 3

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

I do not frustrate the grace of God - The word rendered “frustrate” (ἀθετῶ athetō) means properly to displace, abrogate, abolish; then to make void, to render null; Mar 7:9; Luk 7:30; 1Co 1:19. The phrase “the grace of God,” here refers to the favor of God manifested in the plan of salvation by the gospel, and is another name for the gospel. The sense is, that Paul would not take any measures or pursue any course that would render that vain or inefficacious. Neither by his own life, by a course of conduct which would show that it had no influence over the heart and conduct, nor by the observance of Jewish rites and customs, would he do anything to render that inefficacious. The design is to show that he regarded it as a great principle that the gospel was efficacious in renewing and saving man, and he would do nothing that would tend to prevent that impression on mankind. A life of sin, of open depravity and licentiousness, would do that. And in like manner a conformity to the rites of Moses as a ground of justification would tend to frustrate the grace of God, or to render the method of salvation solely by the Redeemer nugatory. This is to be regarded, therefore as at the same time a reproof of Peter for complying with customs which tended to frustrate the plan of the gospel, and a declaration that he intended that his own course of life should be such as to confirm the plan, and show its efficacy in pardoning the sinner and rendering him alive in the service of God.

For if righteousness come by the law - If justification can be secured by the observance of any law - ceremonial or moral - then there was no need of the death of Christ as an atonement. This is plain. If man by conformity to any law could be justified before God, what need was there of an atonement? The work would then have been wholly in his own power, and the merit would have been his. It follows from this, that man cannot be justified by his own morality, or his alms-deeds, or his forms of religion, or his honesty and integrity. If he can, he needs no Saviour; he can save himself. It follows also that when people depend on their own amiableness, and morality, and good works, they would feel no need of a Saviour; and this is the true reason why the mass of people reject the Lord Jesus. They suppose they do not deserve to be sent to hell. They have no deep sense of guilt. They confide in their own integrity, and feel that God ought to save them. Hence, they feel no need of a Saviour; for why should a person in health employ a physician? And confiding in their own righteousness, they reject the grace of God, and despise the plan of justification through the Redeemer. To feel the need of a Saviour it is necessary to feel that we are lost and ruined sinners; that we have no merit upon which we can rely; and that we are entirely dependent on the mercy of God for salvation. Thus feeling, we shall receive the salvation of the gospel with thankfulness and joy, and show that in regard to us Christ is not “dead in vain.”

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

I do not frustrate the grace of God; I do not despise, reject, make void, (for by all these words the word here used is translated, Mar 7:9; Joh 12:48; Joh 3:15; Heb 10:28), the free love of God, in giving his Son to die for our sins: from whence is easily gathered, that those who live a loose life, and take a liberty to sin, from their justification, or from the free grace of God in Christ, they do contemn and despise the grace of God: or rather, (if we refer it to the following words), those who assert justification by the works of the law, they do reject and despise the free grace of God in the gospel, and (as much as in them lies) make it vain and frustrate.

For if righteousness come by the law; for if it be possible, that a man by works done in obedience to the law should arrive at a righteousness, in which he may stand before God,

then is Christ dead in vain; then Christ died to no purpose, or without any just cause: the reason of this must be, because it was the main and principal end of Christ’s death, to procure or purchase a righteousness wherein sinners might stand before God, to bring in an everlasting righteousness, Dan 9:24. If the most proper effect of the death of Christ be taken away, then his death is made causeless, and to no purpose. Thus the apostle concludeth his thesis, laid down Gal 2:16; That none shall be justified by the works of the law, from two absurdities that would follow upon the contrary, viz. justification by the works of the law, the rejecting of the grace of God, and the frustration, or making void, of the death of Christ.

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

21. I do not thus, like the legalist and Judaizer, frustrate, that is, make useless, the grace of God: for if righteousness, that is, justification and pardon, are by the law, then Christ died (not in vain, but) needlessly. There was no demand for grace or atonement if law gave righteousness.

The following extract from Stanley’s notice of “The Clementines” (see our note, 2Co_10:1,) illustrates the assaults against which Paul here defends himself: “In an argument between Simon [Magus] and Peter, in which the former insists on the superiority of visions as evidence to our Lord’s discourses, the latter on that of actual intercourse, Peter concludes as follows: ‘If, then, Jesus our Lord (ο Ιησους ημων) was seen in a vision, and was known by thee, and conversed with thee, it was in anger with thee as an adversary that he spoke to thee through visions and dreams, and even through outward revelations. But can any one be made wise to teach through a vision? If thou sayest that he can, why then did our Master abide and converse with his disciples, not sleeping but awake, for a whole year? And how shall we believe the very fact that he was seen of thee? And how could he have been seen of thee, when thou teachest things contrary to his teaching? And if, by having been seen and made a disciple by him for one hour, thou becamest an apostle, then expound what he has taught, love his apostles, fight not with me who was his companion. For me, the firm rock, the foundation of the Church, even me thou did “withstand” openly (ανθεστηκας). If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldst not have calumniated me, and reviled my preaching, to deprive me of credit when I spoke what I had heard myself in intercourse with the Lord; as if I were to be blamed, I whose character is so great. Or if thou sayest that I was condemned by my own act, (κατεγνωσμενον,) thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me, and attackest him who blessed me because of that revelation. But since thou wishest truly to work with the truth, now learn first from us what we learned from him; and when thou hast become a disciple of the truth, then become a fellow-worker with us.” Compare Gal_1:1; Gal_1:12; Gal_1:15-20; 1Co_9:1; 2Co_10:16; 2Co_11:1-5, and especially St. Paul’s own words (Gal_2:11) in the account of the feud at Antioch—αντεστην,… κατεγνωσμενος.” See note, 2Co_10:1.

In this speech Paul makes Peter’s error the starting point to give, perhaps, his first fixed exposition of the contrast between law and grace. For the Jew to perform a sacrifice, or the papist to say a certain number of paternosters as an act which in itself compensated or atoned for sin, was a legal, worthless, unsaving work. The true way is, by a self-consecrating faith to surrender my all to Christ, by him to be empowered to walk in all the ways of holiness. And here he spreads for his Galatians a platform on which they should stand, but which some sorcery is deluding them to desert.

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

I do not frustrate the grace of God (oujk ajqetw thrin tou Qeou); I do not reject the grace of God. As I should be doing, it; instead of resting with "glorified" (1Pe_1:8) satisfaction in the fatherly love and complacency with which God regards me in Christ, I began to give anxious heed to what the Law prescribes touching things or persons clean or unclean, and to deem it possible and needful to secure acceptableness with God through works of ceremonial performance. If it were only for one single reason alone, I do not, I cannot, thus slight and set at nought the state of grace with all its attendant blessings into which God has in Christ Jesus brought me. The "grace of God" presents that entire notion of the kingdom of grace which the apostle sets forth, and on which he descants with such glowing animation, in the fifth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The term of itself stands in vivid contrast to that slavish, anxious, never assured working for acceptance, which characterized the Jewish legalist, and characterizes the legalist Christian as well. As the apostle does not write ejgw oujk ajqetw, which would mean, "I do not set aside, not I," he is not to be read as if just now emphasizing a personal contrast between himself, and either St. Peter or the Judaizers with whom St. Peter was then to outward appearance taking sides; he is at present simply winding up his recital of his remonstrance at Antioch with the one terse argument, with which he then justified his own position, and, as if with a sledge-hammer, at once demolished the position of the Judaizers. The verb ajqetw means "reject," "turn from as from a thing unworthy of regard;" as in Mar_7:9, "Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition;" Luk_7:30, "The Pharisees and lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God;", 1Th_4:8, "He that rejecteth our testimony touching this rejeeteth not man, but God;" Heb_10:28, "A man that hath set at nought Moses" Law;" in which last passage it indicates, but without itself fully describing, a more aggressive disobedience. The rendering "made void," adopted by the Revisers, in the sense of "disannul," is doubtless fully authenticated by Gal_3:15; 1Ti_5:12; nh Heb_9:18. Since even an apostle could not "disannul" the "grace of God" viewed in itself, this sense of the word, if adopted, would, as well as the perhaps questionable rendering of our Authorized Version, "frustrate," apply to the previous work of Divine grace wrought upon the apostle"s own soul. But the logical connection of the following clause is more easily shown by our reverting to the sense before given to the verb, which in the New Testament is the more usual one. For if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain (eij gar diamou dikaiosu ara Cristov dwrean ajpeqanen); for if through the Law is righteousness, then did Christ for nought die. This one reason is decisive. The sole reason why the Son of God came into the world to suffer death was to do away our sins and make us righteous with God. But if sin can be purged by the purifications of the Law, and cleanness before God is procurable by Levitical ceremonies, then there was no need for this; then the Crucifixion, for this one end ordained and from the beginning of time prepared for by the Father, and fur this one end, of his own free choice gone forward to, brought about, and undergone by Christ himself, was a simply superfluous sacrifice. We might have been saved, nay, have perchance saved ourselves, without it. It is impossible to find in all Scripture a more decisive passage than this in proof both of the fact of, the atonement and of its supreme importance in the Christian system. This is emphatically Christ"s great work. Compared with this, all besides is either subsidiary or derivative, Dwrean, (as a mere gift,) "for nought;" that is, without cause, there being no call or just occasion for it; Joh_15:25, "They hated me without cause;" 1Sa_19:5, Septuagint, "Slay David without a cause ;" Eze_6:10, Septuagint, "I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them;" Ecc 29:6, "He hath got him an enemy without cause. " The apostle adds nothing as to the effect of his remonstrance. It is impossible, however, to doubt that, so instinct as it was with the power of the Holy Spirit, it proved successful, not only in the healing of the mischief which had begun to show itself in the Antiochian Church, but also in its effect upon St. Peter. Nothing has transpired of any later intercourse between the two apostles. But the thorough honesty which in the main was one of St. Peter"s great characteristics, notwithstanding the perplexed action in which from time to time he got involved, through the warmth of his sympathetic affections and his sometimes too hasty impulsiveness, would be sure to make him preeminently tractable to the voice of a true-speaking and holy friend; and, moreover, in the present instance, St. Paul was appealing to sentiments which he had himself recently proved at Jerusalem to be deeply operative in his own bosom. How deeply operative, is further evinced in his own two Epistles, written some eight or ten years later than this Epistle, and addressed also in part to the same Galatian Churches; in which he not only weaves into his language not a few expressions and turns of thought which have all the appearance of being borrowed from Epistles of St. Paul, but also in the second of them makes direct mention of those Epistles, speaking of them as standing on the footing of "the other Scriptures," and of their author as "our beloved brother Paul;" notwithstanding that one of those very writings contains the extremely plain-spoken account of that sad fall of his at Antioch. which we have here been considering. (On St. Paul"s later relations with St. Barnabas, see above on ver. 13.)

No frustration of Divine grace in the apostle"s teaching.

do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ died without cause.

I THE GRACE OF GOD IS THE TRUE SOURCE OF SALVATION. This grace was manifested in the death of Christ, and in the blessings derived to believers from their union with him. The apostle"s trust in him only magnified the grace of God.

II ITS FRUSTRATION WAS POSSIBLE ON PETER"S PRINCIPLES. If any attempt were made to put works in the place of faith, or to mix works with faith as a ground of justification, or to establish a system under which ceremonialism was made essential to salvation, the grace of God were effectively frustrated.

III THE ULTIMATE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN THIS FRUSTRATION. "If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ died without cause.

1. The righteousness in question is that by which a man becomes right with God. A man might attain to this righteousness if he could keep or had kept the Law of God. But he has broken the Law and is under its curse. The righteousness must therefore be reached in another way. It comes "by faith," not "by the Law". (Php_3:9)

2. Christs death is altogether unnecessary on the supposition of a righteousness by the Law. Why should the Son of God have died to procure what a sinner can win for himself by his own personal obedience? This closes the argument in the most effective manner.

Grace frustrated.

I IF WE SEEK FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS BY MEANS OF LAW WE MAKE NO USE OF THE GRACE OF GOD. Here are two rival methods for obtaining righteousness. The first is wide and various, by means of Law, any law the Levitical system, ascetic discipline, rites of heathen mysteries, Stoic philosophy, our own attempts to conform to an outside rule. The second is specific, the grace of God, the grace shown in the gospel, the grace that comes through the sacrifice of Christ. These two methods are mutually exclusive. They run in opposite directions. The Judaizing party was trying to combine them. The Roman Catholics made the same attempt when they regarded justification as the result of works wrought by means of grace. But, though grace does lead us to conformity with Law, it can only do so in its own way by changing the heart and planting principles of righteousness, not by assisting the old servile effort to keep certain external ordinances. The old stage-coach can be of no assistance to the express train. By so much of the distance as you go by road you leave the rail and therefore lose ground. The mistake of neglecting grace for Law is

(1) foolish, for we thus lose a help freely offered;

(2) ungrateful, for we refuse the gift of God; and

(3) dangerous, for we shall be to blame for the failure that could have been avoided had we not declined to avail ourselves of God"s method of righteousness.

All attempts, then, to increase holiness by monastic rules, regulations of a religious order, specific vows, or restraints of formal Church discipline are unchristian. The higher righteousness must be attained by the same means through which the first elements were secured. Any other method is poorer and weaker. We begin with grace; we can never improve upon grace.

II IF RIGHTEOUSNESS WERE ATTAINABLE BY MEANS OF LAW, CHRIST"S DEATH WOULD HAVE BEEN TO NO PURPOSE.

1. The method of Law was the older method. If this had been successful there would have been no need to add another. If the Old Testament were enough the New Testament need never have been produced.

2. The method of Law was the less costly method. We do not turn to more expensive methods if no superior advantage is to be gained by them. The new method is only possible at the greatest possible cost. The righteousness by Law required no special sacrifice. The righteousness by grace required the death of the Son of God. How much superior must God consider it to be willing to pay so heavy a price in order to secure it to us! We may be sure that, if by any easier way the same results could have been reached, God would have spared his own Son. Yet they who neglect this grace for the old method of Law proclaim by their actions that the great sacrifice was unnecessary. For themselves, too, they do make it a useless thing. This is the pathetic side of their error. Refusing to avail themselves of the grace of God, they bring it to pass that, as far as they are concerned, Christ died in vain. 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.

Meantime I do not make void - In seeking to be justified by my own works. The grace of God - The free love of God in Christ Jesus. But they do, who seek justification by the law. For if righteousness is by the law - If men might be justified by their obedience to the law, moral or ceremonial. Then Christ died in vain - Without any necessity for it, since men might have been saved without his death; might by their own obedience have been both discharged from condemnation, and entitled to eternal life.

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

VERSE 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God.

Paul is now getting ready for the second argument of his Epistle, to the effect that to seek justification by works of the Law, is to reject the grace of God. I ask you, what sin can be more horrible than to reject the grace of God, and to refuse the righteousness of Christ? It is bad enough that we are wicked sinners and transgressors of all the commandments of God; on top of that to refuse the grace of God and the remission of sins offered unto us by Christ, is the worst sin of all, the sin of sins. That is the limit. There is no sin which Paul and the other apostles detested more than when a person despises the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Still there is no sin more common. That is why Paul can get so angry at the Antichrist, because he snubs Christ, rebuffs the grace of God, and refuses the merit of Christ. What else would you call it but spitting in Christ’s face, pushing Christ to the side, usurping Christ’s throne, and to say: "I am going to justify you people; I am going to save you." By what means? By masses, pilgrimages, pardons, merits, etc. For this is Antichrist’s doctrine: Faith is no good, unless it is reinforced by works. By this abominable doctrine Antichrist has spoiled, darkened, and buried the benefit of Christ, and in place of the grace of Christ and His Kingdom, he has established the doctrine of works and the kingdom of ceremonies.

We despise the grace of God when we observe the Law for the purpose of being justified. The Law is good, holy, and profitable, but it does not justify. To keep the Law in order to be justified means to reject grace, to deny Christ, to despise His sacrifice, and to be lost.

VERSE 21. For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Did Christ die, or did He not die? Was His death worth while, or was it not? If His death was worth while, it follows that righteousness does not come by the Law. Why was Christ born anyway? Why was He crucified? Why did He suffer? Why did He love me and give Himself for me? It was all done to no purpose if righteousness is to be had by the Law.

Or do you think that God spared not His Son, but delivered Him for us all, for the fun of it? Before I would admit anything like that, I would consign the holiness of the saints and of the angels to hell.

To reject the grace of God is a common sin, of which everybody is guilty who sees any righteousness in himself or in his deeds. And the Pope is the sole author of this iniquity. Not content to spoil the Gospel of Christ, he has filled the world with his cursed traditions, e.g., his bulls and indulgences.

We will always affirm with Paul that either Christ died in vain, or else the Law cannot justify us. But Christ did not suffer and die in vain. Hence, the Law does not justify.

If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny’s worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law which God disdains?

Man’s own righteousness is in the last analysis a despising and rejecting of the grace of God. No combination of words can do justice to such an outrage. It is an insult to say that any man died in vain. But to say that Christ died in vain is a deadly insult. To say that Christ died in vain is to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven, earth, God Himself, of no purpose and benefit whatever.

That is enough to set any person against the righteousness of the Law and all the trimmings of men’s own righteousness, the orders of monks and friars, and their superstitions.

Who would not detest his own vows, his cowls, his shaven crown, his bearded traditions, yes, the very Law of Moses, when he hears that for such things he rejected the grace of God and the death of Christ. It seems that such a horrible wickedness could not enter a man’s heart, that he should reject the grace of God, and despise the death of Christ. And yet this atrocity is all too common. Let us be warned. Everyone who seeks righteousness without Christ, either by works, merits, satisfactions, actions, or by the Law, rejects the grace of God, and despises the death of Christ.

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.

grace Grace (in salvation). vs. Gal 5:4; Rom 3:24. (See Scofield "Joh 1:17").

righteousness (See Scofield "Rom 10:10").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The apostle concludes the chapter with a double argument, to prove the Christian’s justification by faith, without the works of the law.

1. Were it otherwise, we should frustrate and make void the grace of God: For if justification be by works, it can no more be by grace; according to the apostle, Rom 6:6.

2. Christ’s death had been in vain, without any necessary cause or reason at all, if the justification of a sinner could have been obtained by his own works.

Where note, that as well works done after faith and conversion, as those done before it, are excluded from being the meritorious cause of our justification, either in whole or in part; because the joining of works with faith, in the matter of our justification, is a total exclusion of God’s free grace, and a loud proclaiming, that Christ died in vain: If righteousness come by the law, I frustrate the grace of God, and Christ is dead in vain.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. [I do not, Peter, in following my course, make void the grace of God which gave us Christ. But your course does this very thing, for if a man can be righteous and obtain justification under the law, then the death of Christ is superfluous. Paul's rebuke to Peter is not only a complete climactic justification of his claims as an apostle, but forms also a most fitting introduction, both in matter and spirit, to his immediately following rebuke of the Galatians, who were, like Peter, returning to the law.]

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.

21. I do not frustrate the grace of God. He would do so, if he went back to the Jewish law, and trusted in it. If it gave righteousness, then the gospel was not needed, and Christ died in vain.

Note —The account in this chapter of Paul's visit to Jerusalem, and of his controversy with Peter, is utterly inconsistent with the Romish doctrine of the supremacy of Peter. No Pope could or would allow a bishop or cardinal to “rebuke him openly,” as Paul did Peter. So, too, the reference of the controversy in Acts 15, to “the apostles and elders,” instead of to Peter, and the final judgment of James, which was received, contradict the Vatican system. Indeed, the doctrine of popedom is utterly inconsistent with the whole tenor of the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles.… This meeting at Antioch is the last between Peter and Paul of which the New Testament gives record. Early church tradition, however, reports that they met once in Rome, where they were tried and condemned on the same day, and then parted, Peter to be crucified on the hill of the Janiculum, and Paul, the Roman citizen, to be beheaded at the Three Fountains on the Ostian Way. Could we rely upon this tradition it would seem fitting that the two greatest apostles, of the Circumcision and of the Uncircumcision, should lay down their burdens together and go side by side to report their work to their common Lord.

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.

21. A summary of Gal 2:15-20, and indeed of the whole Epistle. I do not set at nought God’s grace, as you think of doing. There is no righteousness by means of the Law. If there were, Christ died and gained nothing thereby.

οὐκ ἀθετῶ. In St Paul’s writings, Gal 3:15; 1Co 1:19 (a quotation); 1Th 4:8 (where see note); 1Ti 5:12[87]. It is strictly “to set out of position,” i.e. “set aside,” “set at nought.” Cf. Luk 10:16; 1Sa 2:17; Isa 1:2. “It describes not only the violation of an ordinance or authority in details, but the denial of the validity of the ordinance or the authority altogether” (Westcott on Heb 10:28); cf. 1Ma 15:27. In the papyri ἀθέτησις (often joined with ἀκύρωσις) is used in a technical juristic sense (Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 228).

[87] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ. Gal 1:15.

εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμον δικαιοσύνη. See Gal 2:16 notes.

ἄρα (Gal 5:11) Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. Without receiving any payment for His pains and sacrifice, in your salvation taking place through Him: Gen 29:15; 2Co 11:7; i.e. without any due cause, Joh 15:25.

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.

21.] I do not (as thou (Peter) art doing, and the Judaizers) frustrate (reff.: not merely ‘despise,’ as Erasm., al.) the grace of God: for (justification of the strong expression ἀθετῶ) if by the law (comes) righteousness (not justification—but the result of justification), then Christ died without cause (not ‘in vain,’ with reference to the result of His death (for which meaning Lidd. and Scott’s Lex. refers to LXX: but it does not appear to occur in that sense), but gratuitously, causelessly (reff.);—‘Christ need not have died.’ εἰ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ὁ χριστός, εὔδηλον ὅτι διὰ τὸ μὴ ἰσχύειν τὸν νόμον ἡμᾶς δικαιοῦν· εἰ δὲ ὁ νόμος δικαιοῖ, περιττὸς ὁ τοῦ χριστοῦ θάνατος. Chr.). οὕτω ταῦτα διεξελθὼν ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸν τρισμακάριον (truly so in this case, in having found such a faithful reprover) Πέτρον διαλέξεως, πρὸς αὐτοὺς λοιπὸν ἀποτείνεται, κ. βαρυθυμῶν ἀποφθέγγεται. Thdrt.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

21. Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· “I do not make of no effect the grace of God.” This sentence, abruptly introduced without connective, is doubtless an answer to an objection which the apostle knows to have been urged or which he foresees may easily be urged against his doctrine. This objection, as is shown by the χάριν of this sentence and the reference to law in the next, is to the effect that he is making of no account the special grace of God to Israel in giving them the law (cf. Rom 3:31). Since χάρις is a favourite term of the apostle in reference to the gospel, it is not impossible that it was taken up by his critics and turned against him in some such statement as that by his doctrine of grace as against law he was really making of no account the grace of God to Israel. This criticism he answers by direct denial, which he sustains in the next sentence. It would be natural to expect him to turn the criticism upon his critics by intimating that it was they who rejected the grace of the gospel. But to have suggested this thought he must, it would seem, have used the emphatic ἐγώ.

On ἀθετῶ, “to set aside,” “to reject,” cf. Mar 7:9, 1Th 4:3, Gal 3:15; M. and M. Voc. s. v. On the meaning of χάρις, see on 1:6.

εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. “for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died needlessly.” On the use of the word δικαιοσύνη, see detached note, p. 460. It is doubtless to be taken here, chiefly at least, in its forensic sense (VI B. 2, p. 469), this rather than the ethical sense having been the subject of discussion from v. 15 on, and it being this also which the apostle a little more frequently associates with the death of Christ (chap. 3:13, 14, Rom 3:24-26, Rom 3:5:9, Rom 3:10; cf. note on chap. 1:4). διὰ νόμον is doubtless also to be taken, as throughout the passage, in its legalistic sense (see detached note on Νόμος V 2 (c), p. 457, and cf. on v. 19 above). δωρεάν means not “without result,” a meaning which it apparently never has, certainly not in N. T., nor “freely,” in the sense “gratuitously,” “without (giving or receiving) pay,” which, though a well-established meaning of the word (see Rom 3:24, and cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v.), would be wholly inappropriate here, but “without cause,” “needlessly,” as in Joh 15:25. The protasis εἰ … δικαιοσύνη is in form a simple supposition, which is often used, as in chap. 1:9, Rom 5:10, when the context makes it clear that the condition is fulfilled, but also not infrequently, as here and in 3:18, where it is equally clear that in the opinion of the writer it is contrary to fact. See BMT 248, 249. The argument of the sentence is from a Christian point of view a reductio ad absurdum, and is adduced as proof of the preceding statement. If, as you affirm but I deny, men must obey the statutes of the law in order to achieve righteousness, then there was no need that Christ should die. Law in the legalistic sense, and the conception of righteousness as obtainable through it, was well established in the world. If this conception was correct, if righteousness could really be attained in this way, there was no need of a new revelation of God’s way of righteousness (see Rom 1:17, Rom 3:21); and the death of Christ, with its demonstration of divine righteousness (Rom 3:25 f.) and God’s love (Rom 5:7-10) and its redemption of men from the curse of the law (see chap. 3:13 and notes on it), was needless. That in the plan of God it came to pass (chap. 1:4, 4:4, Rom 8:32) is evidence that it was not needless, and this in turn proves that righteousness through law was not God’s plan for the world, and refutes the charge that denial of the validity of law to secure righteousness involves a setting aside of the grace of God.

Mey. and others understand χάριν to refer exclusively and directly to the grace of God manifest in the gospel and take οὐκ ἀθετῶ, etc., not as an answer to an objection but as an indirect condemnation of the course of Peter, the meaning being, I do not set aside the grace of God manifest in the death of Christ, as is virtually done by those who insist that righteousness is through law. The clause εἰ … δικαιοσύνη is then designed to prove, not, as above, that the rejection of righteousness by law does not involve a setting aside of the grace of God, but that insistence on righteousness by law does involve it. For to affirm that righteousness is through law is to say that God’s grace manifest in his death was useless. Such an interpretation of the argument, though not perhaps impossible, is open to two objections: first, that the form of expression, “I do not set aside,” etc., suggests a denial of something that is said or might be speciously said against Paul’s view, rather than a claim made by himself for his view or an objection to his opponent’s view; and, secondly, that it makes the εἰ γάρ sentence a proof of something only remotely implied in the preceding statement instead of taking it as directly related to what is expressed in the preceding sentence, viz., that Paul’s view does not involve a setting at nought of God’s grace.

Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria. † 444. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

L.&S. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., Greek English Lexicon. Seventh edition revised. New York, 1882.

W. Winer, G. B., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Various editions and translations.

Wies. Wieseler, Karl, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater. Göttingen, 1859.

Ell. Ellicott, Charles John, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1854. Various subsequent editions.

Ltft. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions.

Mey. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief an die Galater. Göttingen, 1841, in Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1832-59. E. T., with bibliography, by Venables and Dickson. Edinburgh, 1873-85. Various later editions. See also under Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.

Sief. Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.

Bous. Bousset, Wilhelm, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen, 1907. 2te Aufl., 1908.

Grot. Grotius, Hugo (Huig van Groot), Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Paris, 1644. See Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895. , p. civ.

Seml. Semler, Johann Salomo, Paraphrasis Epistolæ ad Galatas, cum Prolegomenis, Notis, etc. Magdeburg, 1779.

D D. Codex Claromontanus. Sixth century. In National Library, Paris. Greek-Latin. Edited by Tischendorf, 1852.

F F. Codex Augiensis. Ninth century. In Trinity College, Cambridge. Greek-Latin. Edited by Scrivener, 1859. Closely related to Codex Bærnerianus. See Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Leipzig, 1902, pp. 113 f.

G G. Codex Bærnerianus. Ninth century. In Royal Library, Dresden. Greek-Latin. Edited by Matthæi, 1791; photographic reproduction issued by the Hiersemann publishing house, Leipzig, 1909.

Mcion. Marcion. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Iren. Irenæus. † 190. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Ambrst. Ambrosiaster. Ca. 305 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Chrys. Joannes Chrysostomus. † 407. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 228.

B Burton, Ernest De Witt, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Third edition. Chicago, 1898.

Cf. Confer, compare.

Weizs. Weizsäcker, C., Das apostolische Zeitalter. Zweite Aufl. Freiburg, i. B. 1892. Das Neue Testament, übersetzt von C. Weizsäcker.

Lxx The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Quotations are from the edition of H. B. Swete. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1887-94.

Frit. Fritzsche, Karl Friedrich August, Commentarius de nonnullis Epistolæ ad Galatas Locis. Rostock, 1833-4.

GMT Gildersleeve, Basil L., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Revised and enlarged. Boston, 1889.

Kühner-Gerth Kühner, Raphael, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Dritte Auflage in neuer Bearbeitung, besorgt von Bernhard Gerth. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1898, 1904.

Th. Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York, 1886. Rev. edition, 1889.

Tert. Tertullian. † ca. 223. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

* Zahn, like Tert. before him, finds the yielding and the subjection to have been to the pillar apostles and in the fact of coming to Jerusalem to submit this question to the apostles there (not in the circumcision of Titus, which he maintains Paul denies to have taken place) yet supposes that it was not demanded by the apostles, but more probably by the Antioch church. See Com. pp. 93 f. A stranger distortion of the record it would be hard to imagine.

Butt. Buttmann, A., A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. E. T. by J. H. Thayer. Andover, 1873.

Rück. Rückert, Leopold Immanuel, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater. Leipzig, 1833.

WH. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the original Greek. London, 1881. Vol. I, Text; vol. II, Introduction and Appendix.

E. T. English translation.

Victorin. C. Marius Victorinus. Ca. 360 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 231; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.;

Hier. Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome). † 420. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232, and Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Vg. Vulgate, text of the Latin Bible.

אԠא. Codex Sinaiticus. Fourth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Edited by Tischendorf, 1862; photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Oxford, 1911.

A A. Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Museum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. portion by Cowper, 1860; Hansell, 1864; in photographic facsimile, by E. Maunde Thompson, 1879; and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon in 1909.

B B. Codex Vaticanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889; and a second issued by the Hoepli publishing house, 1904.

C C. Codex Ephrœmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimpsest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being written over the original biblical text. New Testament portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Contains Gal 1:21, ἔπειτα to the end, except that certain leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of a few words. So e. g. ξῆλος or ξῆλοι, Gal 5:20.

K K. Codex Mosquensis. Ninth century. In Moscow.

33 33 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 17). Ninth or tenth century. In National Library, Paris. Called by Eichhorn “the queen of the cursives.” Cited by Tischendorf in Galatians more frequently than any other cursive. Contains the Prophets as well as Gospels, Acts, Cath. Epp. and Paul.

Epiph. Epiphanius. † 404. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Euthal. Euthalius. 459. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230, and Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Thdrt. Theodoretus. † ca. 458. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Aug. Aurelius Augustinus. Ca. 394. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Tdf. Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. Editio octava crit. maj. Leipzig, 1869-72.

Ws. Weiss, Bernhard, Die paulinischen Briefe und der Hebräerbrief im berichtigten Text. Leipzig, 1896.

RV. The Holy Bible, Revised Oxford, N.T., 1881, O.T.1884.

M. and M. Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. 1914-.

Hilg. Hilgenfeld, Adolph, Der Galaterbrief übersetzt, in seinen geschichtlichen Bezie-hungen untersucht und erklärt. Leipzig, 1852.

P P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865.

Dam. Joannes Damascenus. † ca. 756. See Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895. , p. c.; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Grœcarum edidit Augustus Boeckius, Berlin, 1828-77.

* Nor is it wholly clear precisely to what extent they had changed their minds. If the interpretation of v. 4 advocated at that point is correct, they had urged the circumcision of Titus on grounds of expediency rather than of principle. They can not therefore have stood for the circumcision of Gentile Christians in general as a matter of intrinsic necessity. But whether in asking for the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the legalists, they had also asked that for like reasons Paul should circumcise all his Gentile converts, does not clearly appear. Consistency would have required that they should do so, since the circumcision of Titus could have had little significance if it were not to be regarded as a precedent. But it is not certain that they were as intent upon logical consistency as upon securing a peaceful settlement of the matter.

Introd. Introduction.

* On the Jewish feeling respecting Jews eating with Gentiles, see Jubil. 22:16, Tob. 1:10, 11, Dan 1:3 Esth. Lxx chap. 28, Jth. 12:1ff. 3 Mal 3:4, Mal 3:7; Jos. Ant. 4:137 (6:8); cited by Bous. Rel. d. Jud 1:8, p. 192; Act 10:23, Act 11:3.

442 442 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 73). Thirteenth century. In Upsala.

E E. Codex Sangermanensis. Ninth century. In Petrograd. Greek-Latin. A copy, not very good, of Codex Claromontanus. Hence not cited in the evidence.

H H. Sixth century. The fragments of this ms. are scattered in six European libraries. The portion at Athos contains Gal 1:1-4 2:Gal 1:14-17; that in the Imperial Library at Petrograd Gal 1:4-10 2:Gal 1:9-14; that in the National Library in Paris Gal 4:30-5. The portions known at that time were published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. VIII; Duchesne published the Athos and Paris fragments in Archives des Missons sc. et lit. Ser. III, vol. 3, pp. 420-429, Paris, 1876; and H. Omont published the entire ms. as then known (forty-one leaves) in Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des èpîtres de Saint Paul, conservé à la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1889; which is republished in Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, vol. 33, pp. 145-192, Paris, 1890. From the offset on opposite leaves J. A. Robinson published sixteen pages of the ms., including Gal 4:27-30 5:Gal 4:6-10, in Texts and Studies, vol. III, No. 3, Cambridge, 1895. Kirsopp Lake reproduced the Athos fragments in facsimile and a transcribed text in Facsimiles of the Athos Fragment of Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, Oxford, 1905. The citations of the text in this commentary are made from the publications of Omont, Robinson, and Lake.

* On the compound συνυποκρίνομαι, see Polyb. 3. 92:5, 5. 49:7; Plut. Marius, 14:17; here only in N. T.

31 31 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 37) the so-called Leicester Codex. Fifteenth century. At Leicester, England. Described by J. Rendel Harris in The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, London, 1887.

Cf. Confer, compare.

RV. The Holy Bible, Revised Oxford, N.T., 1881, O.T.1884.

S. and H. Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895.

אԠא. Codex Sinaiticus. Fourth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Edited by Tischendorf, 1862; photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Oxford, 1911.

C C. Codex Ephrœmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimpsest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being written over the original biblical text. New Testament portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Contains Gal 1:21, ἔπειτα to the end, except that certain leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of a few words. So e. g. ξῆλος or ξῆλοι, Gal 5:20.

D D. Codex Claromontanus. Sixth century. In National Library, Paris. Greek-Latin. Edited by Tischendorf, 1852.

F F. Codex Augiensis. Ninth century. In Trinity College, Cambridge. Greek-Latin. Edited by Scrivener, 1859. Closely related to Codex Bærnerianus. See Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Leipzig, 1902, pp. 113 f.

G G. Codex Bærnerianus. Ninth century. In Royal Library, Dresden. Greek-Latin. Edited by Matthæi, 1791; photographic reproduction issued by the Hiersemann publishing house, Leipzig, 1909.

K K. Codex Mosquensis. Ninth century. In Moscow.

Vg. Vulgate, text of the Latin Bible.

A A. Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Museum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. portion by Cowper, 1860; Hansell, 1864; in photographic facsimile, by E. Maunde Thompson, 1879; and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon in 1909.

B B. Codex Vaticanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889; and a second issued by the Hoepli publishing house, 1904.

Victorin. C. Marius Victorinus. Ca. 360 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 231; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.;

Aug. Aurelius Augustinus. Ca. 394. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Tdf. Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. Editio octava crit. maj. Leipzig, 1869-72.

WH. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the original Greek. London, 1881. Vol. I, Text; vol. II, Introduction and Appendix.

Th. Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York, 1886. Rev. edition, 1889.

Lxx The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Quotations are from the edition of H. B. Swete. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1887-94.

Butt. Buttmann, A., A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. E. T. by J. H. Thayer. Andover, 1873.

* Whether we are to read ἆρα or ἅρα there seems to be no decisive reason to determine; the sentence being a question and that question being whether a certain inference follows from a supposed situation. ἆρα, which is an interrogative particle, leaves the illative element unexpressed, while ἄρα, an illative particle, leaves the interrogation unexpressed. But ἄρα being frequent in Paul, whereas there is no clear instance of ἆρα in his writings, the presumption is perhaps slightly in favour of the former. The difference of meaning is not great. Of the hesitation or bewilderment which lexicographers say is suggested by ἆρα, there is no trace here.

* Sief. cites as holding substantially this view, but with various modifications: Chrys. Thdrt. Oecum. Thphyl. Erasm. Luth. Cast. Calv. Cal. Est. Wolf. Wetst. Seml. Koppe, Borg. Fl. Win. Ust. Matth. Schott. B-Cr. de W. Hilg. Ew. Mey. Pfleid. Wetzel, Ws. This is also the view of Ell.

Wies. Wieseler, Karl, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater. Göttingen, 1859.

Ltft. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions.

Sief. Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.

Bous. Bousset, Wilhelm, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen, 1907. 2te Aufl., 1908.

* Shading in these cases into meaning 2.

* Gal 2:4 would be an example of this manner of speaking if ἐν Χριστῷ were taken as meaning “in fellowship with Christ” rather than “on the basis of [the work of] Christ.”

AV. The Holy Bible. Authorised Version of 1611.

Ell. Ellicott, Charles John, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1854. Various subsequent editions.

Rob. Robertson, Archibald T., Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York, 1914.

W. Winer, G. B., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Various editions and translations.

Rad. Radermacher, L., Neutestameniliche Grammatik. Tübingen, 1911.

Gild. Gildersleeve, Basil L., Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. 2 vols. New York, 1900, 1911.

B Burton, Ernest De Witt, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Third edition. Chicago, 1898.

P P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865.

Ln. Lachmann, C., Novum Testamentum Grœce et Latine. (Ed. major) 2 vols. Berlin, 1842, 1850.

M. and M. Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. 1914-.

Mey. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief an die Galater. Göttingen, 1841, in Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1832-59. E. T., with bibliography, by Venables and Dickson. Edinburgh, 1873-85. Various later editions. See also under Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.

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

Frustrate [αθετω] . Annul or invalidate. Comp. Mr 7:9; 1Co 1:19; Gal 3:15.

The grace of God [την χαριν του θεου] . Cariv is, primarily, that which gives joy [χαρα] . Its higher, Christian meaning is based on the emphasis of freeness in a gift or favor. It is the free, spontaneous, absolute loving kindness of God toward men. Hence often in contrast with the ideas of debt, law, works, sin. Sometimes for the gift of grace, the benefaction, as 1Co 16:3; 2Co 8:6, 19; 1Pe 1:10, 13. So here : the gracious gift of God in the offering of Christ.

Is dead [απεθανεν] . More correctly, died; pointing to the historical incident.

In vain [δωρεαν] . Groundlessly, without cause. See on 2Th 3:8. The sense here is not common. It is not found in Class., and in N. T. only Joh 14:25. In LXX, see Psa 34:7, 19; Psa 108:3; Psa 118:161; 1Sa 19:5; Sir 20 23; 29 6. Comp. Ignatius, Trall. 5. Paul says : "I do not invalidate the grace of God in the offering of Christ, as one does who seeks to reestablish the law as a means of justification; for if righteousness comes through the law, there was no occasion for Christ to die."

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON VERSES 14 - 21.

The course of thought in Paul 's address to Peter is difficult to follow. It will help to simplify it if the reader will keep it before him that the whole passage is to be interpreted in the light of Peter's false attitude - as a remonstrance against a particular state of things.

The line of remonstrance is as follows. If you, Peter, being a Jew, do not live as a Jew, but as a Gentile, as you did when you ate with Gentiles, why do you, by your example in withdrawing from Gentile tables, constrain Gentile Christians to live as Jews, observing the separative ordinances of the Jewish law ? This course is plainly inconsistent.

Even you and I, born Jews, and not Gentiles - sinners - denied the obligation of these ordinances by the act of believing on Jesus Christ. In professing this faith we committed ourselves to the principle that no one can be justified by the works of the law.

But it may be said that we were in no better case by thus abandoning the law and legal righteousness, since, in the very effort to be justified through Christ, we were shown to be sinners, and therefore in the same category with the Gentiles. Does it not then follow that Christ is proved to be a minister of sin in requiring us to abandon the law as a means of justification ?

No God forbid. It is true that, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we stood revealed as sinners, for it was Christ who showed us that we could not be justified by the works of the law; that all our legal strictness only left us sinners. But the inference is false that Christ is thereby shown to be a minister of sin.

For to say that Christ is a minister of sin, is to say that I, at his bidding, became a transgressor by abandoning the law, that the law is the only true standard and medium of righteousness. If I reassert the obligation of the law after denying that obligation, I thereby assert that I transgressed in abandoning it, and that Christ, who prompted and demanded this transgression, is a minister of sin.

But this I deny. The law is not the true standard and medium of righteousness. I did not transgress in abandoning it. Christ is not a minister of sin. For it was the law itself which compelled me to abandon the law. The law crucified Christ and thereby declared him accursed. In virtue of my moral fellowship with Christ, I was (ethically) crucified with him. The act of the law forced me to break with the law. Through the law I died to the law. Thus I came under a new principle of life. I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. If I should declare that righteousness is through the law, by reasserting the obligation of the law as you, Peter, have done, I should annul the grace of God as exhibited in the death of Christ : for in that case, Christ 's death would be superfluous and useless. But I do not annul the grace of God.

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