Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:15
We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
15 18. Consider what is involved in our having embraced Christianity. We were Jews by birth, and not Gentiles, whom the Jews look down upon as ‘sinners’. We were convinced that man cannot be accounted righteous before God on the score of a perfect obedience to the law, but that he is so accounted for the merits’ sake of Christ through faith. We, I say, believed in Christ, that we might be justified as the result of such faith and not of obedience to the law. We had cast aside all trust in the law, and earnestly sought to be saved only by Christ through faith. If we were mistaken, if instead of being justified (i.e. perfectly righteous before God in the imputed righteousness of Christ), we were found to be unjustified and therefore ‘sinners’, like those Gentiles on whom we used to look down, Christ instead of being “the end of the law for righteousness,” would virtually be the minister of sin all His work having failed to justify us, He would have ministered to a state of sin. But such a thought is not to be entertained for a moment. For to insist on the necessity of legal obedience for salvation is to build up an edifice which I formerly overthrew, and to reduce myself to the old position of a transgressor.
Jews by nature ] by birth, not even proselytes.
sinners of the Gentiles ] Rather, from among the Gentiles.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
We who are Jews by nature – It has long been a question whether this and the following verses are to be regarded as a part of the address of Paul to Peter, or the words of Paul as a part of the Epistle to the Galatians. A great variety of opinion has prevailed in regard to this. Grotius says, Here the narrative of Paul being closed, he pursues his argument to the Galatians. In this opinion Bloomfield and many others concur. Rosenmuller and many others suppose that the address to Peter is continued to Gal 2:21. Such seems to be the most obvious interpretation, as there is no break or change in the style, nor any vestige of a transfer of the argument to the Galatians. But, on the other hand, it may be urged:
(1) That Paul in his writings often changes his mode of address without indicating it – Bloomfield.
(2) That it is rather improbable that he should have gone into so long a discourse with Peter on the subject of justification. His purpose was answered by the reproof of Peter for his dissimulation; and there is something incongruous, it is said, in his instructing Peter at such length on the subject of mans justification. Still it appears to me probable that this is to be regarded as a part of the discourse of Paul to Peter, to the close of Gal 2:21.
The following reasons seem to me to require this interpretation:
(1) It is the most natural and obvious – usually a safe rule of interpretation. The discourse proceeds as if it were an address to Peter.
(2) There is a change at the beginning of the next chapter, where Paul expressly addresses himself to the Galatians.
(3) As to the impropriety of Pauls addressing Peter at length on the subject of justification, we are to bear in mind that he did not address him alone.
The reproof was addressed to Peter particularly, but it was before them all Gal 2:14; that is, before the assembled church, or before the persons who had been led astray by the conduct of Peter, and who were in danger of error on the subject of justification. Nothing, therefore, was more proper than for Paul to continue his discourse for their benefit, and to state to them fully the doctrine of justification. And nothing was more pertinent or proper for him now than to report this to the Galatians as a part of his argument to them, showing that he had always, since his conversion, held and defended the same doctrine on the subject of the way in which people are to be justified in the sight of God. It is, therefore, I apprehend, to be regarded as an address to Peter and the other Jews who were present. We who were born Jews.
By nature – By birth; or, we were born Jews. We were not born in the condition of the Gentiles.
And not sinners of the Gentiles – This cannot mean that Paul did not regard the Jews as sinners, for his views on that subject he has fully expressed in Rom. 2; 3. But it must mean that the Jews were not born under the disadvantages of the Gentiles in regard to the true knowledge of the way of salvation. They were not left wholly in ignorance about the way of justification, as the Gentiles were. They knew, or they might know, that men could not be saved by their own works. It was also true that they were under more restraint than the Gentiles were, and though they were sinners, yet they were not abandoned to so gross and open sensuality as was the pagan world. They were not idolaters, and wholly ignorant of the Law of God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. We who are Jews by nature] We who belong to the Jewish nation-who have been born, bred, and educated Jews.
And not sinners of the Gentiles] . Not without the knowledge of God, as they have been. often signifies a heathen, merely one who had no knowledge of the true God. But among the nations or Gentiles many Jews sojourned; who in Scripture are known by the name of Hellenists, and these were distinguished from those who were termed , sinners of the Gentiles-heathens, in our common sense of the word; while the others, though living among them, were worshippers of the true God, and addicted to no species of idolatry. Some have translated this passage thus: We Jews, and not Gentiles, by nature sinners; for it is supposed that here refers to that natural corruption which every man brings into the world. Now, though the doctrine be true, (and the state of man, and universal experience confirm it,) yet it can neither be supported from this place, nor even from Eph 2:3. See Clarke on Ro 2:16. It appears, from the use of this word by some of the best Greek authors, that did not signify by nature, as we use the word, but expressed the natural birth, family, or nation of a man; to distinguish him from any other family or nation. I can give a few instances of this, which are brought to my hand in a small elegant pamphlet, written by Dr. Munter, the present bishop of Zealand, entitled Observationum ex marmoribus Graecis Sacrarum Specimen, and which has been lent to me by the right honourable Lord Teignmouth, to whose condescension, kindness, and learning, many of my studies have been laid under particular obligation.
The word in question is the xxviiith example in the above pamphlet, the substance of which is as follows: In an inscription on a Greek marble, given by Dr. Chandler, page 27, we find these words , , , “My son-in-law, Leo, the son of Artemisius, who is called a Jasian, is of the house of Milesius, though by nature he is from Jaso.” That is: Jaso being a town of Caria, this Leo is said to be , by nature a Jasian, although he sprang from the Milesian family. The following examples will place this in a clearer light. Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. xi. cap. vi. sec. 5, speaking of Amanes, the Amalekite, says: , , , ‘ “For he was by nature incensed against the Jews, because the nation of the Amalekites, from whom he sprang, had been destroyed by them;” that is, he had a national prejudice or hatred to the Jewish people on the above account. The following example from Dio Chrysostom, Orat. xxxi., is also to the point: () , “For they (the Athenians) called this person an Olympian, though by nature he was not their citizen;” that is, he was called an Olympian, though he was not naturally of that city, or, in other words, he was not born there. From these examples, and the scope of the place, we may argue that the words, we who are Jews by nature, mean, we who were born in the land of Judea, and of Jewish parents. And hence the passage in Eph 2:3, which speaks most evidently of the heathens, “and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others,” may be thus understood: Being Gentiles, and brought up in gross darkness, without any knowledge of God, abandoned to all sensual living, we were, from our very condition, and practical state, exposed to punishment. This sense is at least equally good with that given of the words in Ro 2:16, where it is proved that , in several connections, means truly, certainly, incontestably; “we were, beyond all controversy, exposed to punishment, because we had been born among idolaters, and have lived as they did. Here both senses of the word apply.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Jews by nature; born Jews, not only proselyted to the Jewish religion, (and so under an obligation to the observation of the Jewish law), but of the seed of Abraham, and so under the covenant made with him and his seed, as he was the father of the Jewish nation.
Not sinners of the Gentiles: the Gentiles were ordinarily called by the Jews sinners; though it appeareth that there were divers of them worshippers of the true God, and came up to Jerusalem to worship; for whose sake there was a peculiar court allotted in the temple, called: The court of the Gentiles. Yet not being under the obligation of the Jewish law, they went under the denomination of sinners by the Jews; and the most of the Gentiles were really sinners, and that eminently, (for such the word here used ordinarily signifieth), as the apostle describeth their manners, Rom 1:29-31.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15, 16. Connect these versestogether, and read with most of the oldest manuscripts “But”in the beginning of Ga 2:16:”We (I and thou, Peter) by nature (not by proselytism), Jews,and not sinners as (Jewish language termed the Gentiles) from amongthe Gentiles, YET(literally, ‘BUT’) knowingthat . . . even we (resuming the ‘we’ of Ga2:15, ‘we also,’ as well as the Gentile sinners; casting awaytrust in the law), have believed,” &c.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
We who are Jews by nature,…. I Paul, and you Peter and Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews at Antioch. Some are Jews by grace, in a spiritual sense, as all are that are Christ’s, that are true believers in him, that are born again, and have internal principles of grace formed in their souls, of whatsoever nation they be; see Ro 2:28. Others become Jews by being proselytes to the Jewish religion: such were the Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven, that were dwelling at Jerusalem, when the Spirit was poured down on the apostles on the day of Pentecost, Ac 2:5, but these here spoken of were such as were Jews by birth; they were born so, were descended of Jewish parents, and from their infancy were brought up in the Jewish religion, and under the law of Moses, and in the observance of it:
and not sinners of the Gentiles: i, “the wicked of the nations of the world”, as the l Jews call them. Not but that the Jews also were sinners both by nature and practice, were involved in the guilt of sin, under the power of it, and defiled with it, as the apostle elsewhere most fully proves: nor is this said with regard to the vain opinion the Jews had of themselves, as very holy and righteous persons, who in their own apprehension needed neither repentance nor remission; and who looked upon the Gentiles as very unholy and unfit for conversation with them: but this more particularly respects that part of the character of the Heathens, that they were without the law, and were under no restraints, but lived in all manner of wickedness, without hope and God in the world, and so were notorious sinners, filled with all unrighteousness, profligate and abandoned to every evil work, and are therefore called emphatically “sinful men”, Lu 24:7. And indeed the word , Gentiles, among themselves is sometimes used for
, “a certain most wicked part” of Gentiles in a city m, and so may here design such who lived the most dissolute lives and conversations, to which the Jews are opposed, who had a written law, and were under a better regulation and discipline. The reason of this description, both in the positive and negative branch of it, is to observe, that since they, the apostles, and others, who were born Jews, and so under the law of Moses, and, until Christ came, were under obligation to observe it, but had now relinquished it, and wholly and alone believed in Christ for righteousness and life; then it was the most unreasonable thing in the world, by any means whatever, to lead the Gentiles, who never were under the law, to an observance of it.
l Mattanot Cehunah in Vajikra Rabba, fol. 164. 3. m Harpocratian. Lex. p. 93.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Not sinners of the Gentiles ( ). The Jews regarded all Gentiles as “sinners” in contrast with themselves (cf. Mt 26:45 “sinners” and Lu 18:32 “Gentiles”). It is not clear whether verses 15-21 were spoken by Paul to Peter or whether Paul is now simply addressing the Galatians in the light of the controversy with Peter. Burton thinks that he is “mentally addressing Peter, if not quoting from what he said to him.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
We, etc. Continuation of Paul ‘s address; not the beginning of an address to the Galatians. Under we Paul includes himself, Peter, and the Jewish Christians of Antioch, in contrast with the Gentile Christians. The Galatians were mostly Gentiles.
Who are Jews, etc. The who is wrong. Render we are Jews. The expression is concessive. We are, I grant, Jews. There is an implied emphasis on the special prerogatives and privileges of the Jews as such. See Rom 3:1 f.; 9 1 ff.
Sinners of the Gentiles [ ] . Lit. sinners taken from the Gentiles, or sprung from. Sinners, in the conventional Jewish sense; born heathen, and as such sinners; not implying that Jews are not sinners. The Jew regarded the Gentile as impure, and styled him a dog (Mt 14:27). See Rom 2:12; 1Co 6:1; 1Co 9:21; Eph 2:12; Luk 18:32; Luk 24:7. Possibly Paul here cites the very words by which Peter sought to justify his separation from the Gentile Christians, and takes up these words in order to draw from them an opposite conclusion. This is quite according to Paul ‘s habit.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH APART FROM THE LAW (Even Jews Were So Justified) V. 15-18
1) “We who are Jews by nature,” (hemeis phusei loudaioi) “We being, existing as Jews by nature, by natural birth”; as all the apostles, Paul and Barnabas included, Act 15:10-11; Php_3:5.
2) “And not sinners of the Gentiles,” (kai ouk eks ethnon hamartoloi) “And not lawless ones out of or from among the heathen, nations, races or peoples,” Mat 9:11; Eph 2:3; Eph 2:12. Whether Jew or Gentile all were affirmed by Paul to be sinners by nature, all were called to salvation by Christ, called to service through Baptism and to give glory to God by Christ Jesus, in the church, and the program of Worship and service of our Lord’s church, not the Law of Moses, Eph 2:8-10; Eph 3:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. We who are Jews by nature. Some, I am aware, think that this is stated in the form of an objection, ( ἀνθυποφορὰ,) anticipating what might be urged on the other side, that the Jews possessed higher privileges; not that they would boast of exemption from the law, (for it would have been highly absurd, that they to whom the Law was given should make this their boast,) but that there was a propriety in retaining some points of distinction between them and the Gentiles. I do not entirely reject, and yet, as will afterwards appear, I do not altogether adopt this view. Some, again, consider that it is Paul himself who uses this argument, “If you were to lay upon the Jews the burden of the law, it would be more reasonable, because it is theirs by inheritance.” But neither do I approve of this view.
He is now proceeding to the second part of his speech, which commences with an anticipation. The Gentiles differed from them in this respect, that they were “unholy and profane,” (1Ti 1:9😉 while the Jews, being holy, so far as God had chosen them for his people, might contend for this superiority. Skilfully anticipating the objection, Paul turns it to the opposite conclusion. Since the Jews themselves, with all their advantages, were forced to betake themselves to the faith of Christ, how much more necessary was it that the Gentiles should look for salvation through faith? Paul’s meaning therefore is: “We, who appear to excel others, — we, who, by means of the covenant, have always enjoyed the privilege of being nigh to God, (Deu 4:7,) have found no method of obtaining salvation, but by believing in Christ: why, then, should we prescribe another method to the Gentiles? For, if the law were necessary or advantageous for salvation to those who observed its enactments, it must have been most of all advantageous to us to whom it was given; but if we relinquished it, and betook ourselves to Christ, much less ought compliance with it to be urged upon the Gentiles.”
The word sinner, signifies here, as in many other places, a “profane person,” (Heb 12:16,) or one who is lost and alienated from God. Such were the Gentiles, who had no intercourse with God; while the Jews were, by adoption, the children of God, and therefore set apart to holiness. By nature, does not mean that they were naturally free from the corruption of the human race; for David, who was a descendant of Abraham, acknowledges,
“
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psa 51:5,)
but the corruption of nature, to which they were liable, had been met by the remedy of sanctifying grace. Now, as the promise made the blessing hereditary, so this benefit is called natural; just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says, that they were sprung from a “holy root.” (Rom 11:16.)
When he says, we are Jews by nature, his meaning is, “We are born holy: not certainly by our own merit, but because God hath chosen us to be his people.” Well, then, we who were by nature Jews, what have we done? “We have believed in Jesus Christ.” What was the design of our believing? “That we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” For what reason? Because we “know that a man is not justified by the works of the law.” From the nature and effect of faith, he reasons that the Jews are in no degree justified by the law. For, as they who
“
go about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God,” (Rom 10:3,)
so, on the contrary, they who believe in Christ, confess that they are sinners, and renounce justification by works. This involves the main question, or rather, in this single proposition nearly the whole controversy is embodied. It is the more necessary to bestow some care on the examination of this passage.
The first thing to be noticed is, that we must seek justification by the faith of Christ, because we cannot be justified by works. Now, the question is, what is meant by the works of the law ? The Papists, misled by Origen and Jerome, are of opinion, and lay it down as certain, that the dispute relates to shadows; and accordingly assert, that by “the works of the law” are meant ceremonies. As if Paul were not reasoning about the free justification which is bestowed on us by Christ. For they see no absurdity in maintaining that “no man is justified by the works of the law,” and yet that, by the merit of works, we are accounted righteous in the sight of God. In short, they hold that no mention is here made of the works of the moral law. But the context clearly proves that the moral law is also comprehended in these words; for almost everything which Paul afterwards advances belongs more properly to the moral than to the ceremonial law; and he is continually employed in contrasting the righteousness of the law with the free acceptance which God is pleased to bestow.
It is objected by our opponents, that the term “works” must have been employed without any addition, if Paul had not intended to limit it to a particular class. But I reply, there is the best of all reasons for this mode of expression; for, though a man were to excel all the angels in holiness, no reward is due to works, but on the footing of a Divine promise. Perfect obedience to the law is righteousness, and has a promise of eternal life annexed to it; but it derives this character from God, who declares that “they who have fulfilled them shall live.” (Lev 18:5.) On this point we shall afterwards treat more fully in its own place. (47) Besides, the controversy with the Jews was about the law. Paul, therefore, chose rather to bring the matter to an issue, by meeting them at once on their own ground, than to adopt a more circuitous route, which might wear the aspect of evading the subject, or distrusting his cause. Accordingly he resolves to have a close debate about the law.
Their second objection is, that the whole question raised was about ceremonies, which we readily allow. Why then, say they, would the apostle pass suddenly from a particular department to the whole subject? This was the sole cause of the mistake into which Origen and Jerome were betrayed; for they did not think it natural that, while the false apostles were contending about ceremonies alone, Paul should take in a larger field. But they did not consider that the very reason for disputing so keenly was, that the doctrine led to more serious consequences than at first view appeared. It would not have given so much uneasiness to Paul that ceremonies should be observed, as that the confident hope and the glory of salvation should be made to rest on works; just as, in the dispute about forbidding flesh on certain days, we do not look so much to the importance of the prohibition itself, as to the snare which is laid for the consciences of men. Paul, therefore, does not wander from the subject, when he enters into a controversy about the whole law, although the arguments of the false apostles were confined wholly to ceremonies. Their object in pressing ceremonies was, that men might seek salvation by obedience to the law, which, they falsely maintained, was meritorious; and accordingly, Paul meets them, not with the moral law, but with the grace of Christ alone. And yet this extended discussion does not occupy the whole of the Epistle; he comes at length to the specific question of ceremonies: but as the most serious difficulty was, whether justification is to be obtained by works or by faith, it was proper that this should be first settled. As the Papists of the present day are uneasy when we extort from them the acknowledgment that men are justified by faith alone, they reluctantly admit that “the works of the law” include those of a moral nature. Many of them, however, by quoting Jerome’s gloss, imagine that they have made a good defense; but the context will show that the words relate also to the moral law. (48)
(47) See p. 90.
(48) “The Papists will readily acknowledge that we are justified by faith; but they add that it is in part. Now this gloss spoils all; for they are convinced that we cannot be righteous before God, unless it be accomplished by our Lord Jesus Christ, and unless we rely on that salvation which he has procured for us. The Papists see this very well; and therefore, with a careless air, they will say, We are justified by faith. But by faith alone? No. On this point they give battle, and this is the chief article on which we differ from them.” — Calvin’s Sermons.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) Who are.It will be seen that these words are in italics, and have to be supplied in the Greek. The Received text, which is followed in our version, also I omits a connecting particle, found in the best MSS., at the beginning of Gal. 2:16. Restoring this, a better way of taking the whole passage appears to be to supply only the word are in the present verse, and make the next mark a certain opposition to it: We are (indeed) by birth Jews . . . but (or, and yet), knowing as we did that the Law cannot justify any one, we believed on Christ. The first clause is concessive: We grant you that we were born Jews, and not Gentiles: members of the chosen race, and not sinners. The next clause explains why it was that, with all these privileges, the Christian, though thus born a Jew, transferred his allegiance from the Law to Christ. The reason was that the Law failed in the one great objectto justify us or obtain our acquittal in the sight of God.
By naturei.e., by birth. The privileges of the Jew belonged to all Jews alike, simply by the more fact that they were Jews.
Sinners.The word was almost a synonym for heathen in the mouth of a strict Jew. Hence there is a slight irony in its use by St. Paul. I grant you that from our lofty position we can look down upon those poor Gentiles, sinners by virtue of mere descent.
Of the Gentiles.Of in the sense of natural descent: Of Gentile parentage (and therefore) sinners.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(15-21) The section which follows is, in form at least, still a continuation of the rebuke addressed to St. Peter; but the Apostle soon drifts away from this, and begins imperceptibly a comment upon his own words, which is addressed directly to the Galatians. We are thus led, without any real break, from the historical and personal to the doctrinal portion of the Epistle. It is impossible to say exactly where the speech at Antioch ends and where the comment upon it begins; the Apostle glides from one to the other without any conscious division in his own mind. A similar mingling of narrative and comment is found in St. Johns Gospel: compare, e.g., Joh. 3:14-21; Joh. 3:31-36, the first of which sections formally belongs to the discourse with Nicodemus, and the second to the reply of John the Baptist, though it is clear that much after comment of the Evangelists is interwoven with them. If we are to draw a dividing line at all in the section before us, it might be said that Gal. 2:15-16 were still most nearly a paraphrase of the words actually addressed to St. Peter; while from Gal. 2:17 onwards the Apostle is giving the rein more freely to his own reflections. The sequence of the thought seems to be somewhat as follows:
We belong by our birth to a privileged people. We are not of Gentile descent, and therefore abandoned to our sins. And yet, with all our privileges, we found that we could get no justification whatever from the Law; and this sent us to Christ. We thus abdicated our privileged position; we put ourselves on the same level as the Gentiles, and became (in the eye of the Law) sinners like them. Sinners? Must we then admit that all Christ has done for us is to make us sinners? Far be so irreverent a thought. Our sin consists not in quitting the Law, but in returning to that which has once been abandoned. The function of the Law was preparatory and transitional. The Law itself taught me to expect its own abrogation. It was a stage on the way to Christ. To Him have I given in a complete adhesion. In His death I am severed from ancient ties. In His death I ceased to have any life of my own. All the life I have, man as I am, I owe to Christ, my Saviour. Thus I accept and do not reject and frustrate the gift so freely offered me: whereas, by going back to the Law for justification, I should be practically declaring the death of Christ useless and unprofitable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. By nature By birth.
Sinners Unjustified, either by law or Christ.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘We being Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles.’
This statement attaches to the following statement. It distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles in order that Paul might then make clear that regardless of which men and women were, the way of salvation for both was the same, believing in Jesus Christ. He is saying, “while we may find the observance of these rituals not as difficult as the Gentiles do, because they have become second nature to us, and we do not have their sinful tendencies with regard to them, nevertheless as a result of the preaching of the Gospel we know that we cannot be saved by observing these rituals any more than they can, because we have come to recognise that salvation is not by observing the works of the Law.”
The reason for his words was that he was describing precisely what the Judaisers believed. He is citing what their argument would be in order to destroy it, while sympathising to some extent with what had caused it. They believed that in a sense Jews were by nature ‘not sinners’, (they did not for example ignore the difference between what was ritually clean and what was ritually unclean). And that Gentiles by nature ‘were sinners’. They did not make such distinctions. But what did they mean by it?
‘Jews by nature.’ By this they meant that in their view Jews were born Jews, and were brought up in Jewish ideas and thought-forms, with the ritual requirements of the Law being a part of their daily lives. And thus quite ‘naturally’ they lived according to Jewish customs, and were as a result of this comparatively ‘clean’ by Jewish standards.
‘Sinners of the Gentiles.’ The Gentiles on the other hand were in a different position. Jews saw all Gentiles as ‘sinners’, just as the Pharisees described as ‘sinners’ all who did not observe their ritual and ethical requirements, and this was because they saw their own ritual and ethical requirements, which were not observed by the Gentiles, as expressing the Law of God. Thus as Gentiles did not observe their regulations concerning the eating of blood, and the washing away of defilement, and the observing of different feasts, and so on, they made themselves evident sinners.
The point is that ritual and ethical requirements of the Law had become second nature to many Jews. They had grown up in them and they were natural to them (even though they might not fulfil them). But they were not natural to the Gentiles. It was natural to them to be ‘sinners’ as far as the Law was concerned. So Paul is pointing out that by his action Peter was asking them to act against nature, even though he had previously behaved among them as though he was happy with their behaviour. In this way Paul clearly puts Jewish tradition into its proper place as restricted to Jews and not applicable to all. And he now deals with the heart of the situation. In using the word ‘sinners’ Paul may here have been being sarcastic, expressing the stated views of the Judaisers who had influenced Peter, for he himself knew that all men were sinners (Rom 3:23).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The lessons drawn from this incident:
v. 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
v. 16. knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, 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; for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
v. 17. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid!
v. 18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
v. 19. For I through the Law am dead to the Law that I might live unto God.
v. 20. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh. I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
v. 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain. Whether these words belong to the reproof which Paul addressed to Peter at Antioch or are a further exposition of the principle involved in the incident, is immaterial; they show, at any rate, that Paul felt the very basis of Christian doctrine to be endangered by the conduct of Peter. His words, therefore, form an elaborate argument against the doctrinal errors of the Judaizing teachers: We, by nature Jews and not sinners out of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but only through faith of Christ Jesus, we also have put our faith in Christ Jesus, in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; for by works of the Law shall all flesh find no justification. The apostle speaks here of those that are Jews by nationality, to whom he belonged, having been born a Jew and educated as a Jew. These all had the outward advantage of possessing the Word of God, and the true Israelites had forgiveness of sins through this Word, whereas the Gentiles as a class were sinners, outside of the pale of the Church in every sense of the word. But in spite of this fact which gave them an outward advantage over the Gentiles, since the latter had neither the Law nor the works of the Law, as Luther writes, the Jews were not in themselves righteous before God; they could at best point only to an outward righteousness.
But since there is no essential difference between Jews and Gentiles, Paul makes a very general statement, namely, that he and all Jewish Christians know that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but only and alone by faith of and in Christ Jesus, by the faith which is wrought by Him and places its trust in Him. “We are righteous, he says, because we are by nature Jews, not sinners like the Gentiles, but we are righteous through the righteousness of the works of the Law by which nobody is justified before God. Therefore we also, even as the Gentiles, regard our righteousness as dirt and seek to be justified through faith in Christ; being sinners together with the Gentiles, we are justified together with the Gentiles, for God, as Peter says, Act 15:9, put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. ” This is not a matter of feeling, but of knowledge based upon the testimony of the Gospel. And upon this basis we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, not in works, not in merit, not in conduct of our own, for a sinful person cannot and does not perform such deeds as will make him pure and righteous in the sight of God. Justification can be obtained only in that way which is offered in God’s revelation, by placing one’s faith in Christ Jesus alone. And even then it is not the act of believing which merits salvation, but the act of believing is the manifestation of the life wrought by God, by which a person receives the righteousness of Christ. Everything that pertains to works, that has even the semblance of works, is ruled out, must be excluded absolutely; for there is no justification for all flesh through works of the Law, highly as they may be esteemed otherwise in the Christian’s sanctification, Psa 143:2; Rom 3:28. By faith the sins of the sinner are imputed to Christ, and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner; by faith the works that agree with the will of God in the Law are set aside as works that fulfill the Law, but incidentally that same faith, having accepted the justification offered by the grace of God through the merits of Christ, is found engaged in works which are well pleasing to Christ and our heavenly Father.
Paul now answers an objection which is often brought forward against the doctrine of justification, as stated by him in such an unequivocal manner: But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, is Christ, then, a servant of sin? By no means! For if those things which I destroyed I build again, I prove myself a transgressor. For I through the Law am dead to the Law, in order that I may live to God. We Christians know and freely acknowledge that our only chance at justification is through faith in Christ, just as Paul did, just as Peter did. But if we, at the same time, by attempting to fulfill the Law (which is impossible), ourselves are found sinners, place ourselves under the condemnation of transgression, is Christ, who lives in us by faith, therefore a minister of sin in us? Paul rejects the very thought with horror. And yet, this is the inevitable, logical consequence of such an action as that of which Peter was guilty: confessing himself to belong to the freedmen of the Lord, and yet, by a hypocritical attempt at fulfilling the ceremonial law, again placing himself, and therefore the Lord in him, under the dominion of sin. That this is the logical consequence, Paul shows by stating that he who rebuilds a house destroyed by himself thereby openly confesses himself to be the criminal. Even so Peter, by trying to foist upon the Christians the demands of the ceremonial law, declared as much as if he had been wrong in making use of his evangelical freedom, that rather the Law was to be observed in all particulars now as before. In opposition to this, Paul says that the true Christian through the Law is dead to the Law. He has found out, in many cases by bitter experience, that all his efforts at fulfilling the Law are ineffectual, that he cannot obtain complete righteousness by the works of the Law; his spiritual understanding of the Law shuts out the very possibility. And so he has died to the Law; the Law, which would have had dominion over him if he had lived and continued his attempts to fulfill it, now has lost its power over him, Rom 6:1-23. He that tries to keep the requirements of the Law becomes subject to death through the Law, for the Law will condemn him as a transgressor. But he that dies to the Law in Christ escapes its condemnation, and can thenceforth devote the new, spiritual life which he has obtained from Christ to the service of Christ. See Rom 8:7-13. The Christian, though, on account of, the Law, under a legal dispensation, owing to sin, was brought under the curse of the Law; but having undergone this, with and in the person of Christ, he has died to the Law in the fullest and deepest sense, being both free from its claims and having satisfied its curse.
This thought is brought out more fully in the last verses: With Christ I was crucified together. But it is no longer I that live, there lives rather in me Christ; but what I now live in the flesh, in faith live I it, namely, in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I frustrate not the grace of God; for if righteousness come through the Law, then Christ has died in vain. By faith every believer comes into fellowship with Christ’s death on the cross, thus becoming a partaker of all the blessings and benefits which the death of Christ has brought to men. The individuality, the person, of the believer is therefore submerged in Christ. It is not his own spiritual life, strictly speaking, which lives in this earthly body, but that of Christ, who has made His abode in him, Joh 15:1-27, l-6. And the spiritual life in this mortal body can be sustained only in that measure and degree in which it is nourished by faith. That is the believer’s confidence, that Christ, the Son of God, loved him, a fact which was established beyond the shadow of a doubt by Christ’s great sacrifice, when He gave Himself into death as the Substitute for all men. This faith is grounded in the Gospel, receiving new impetus and power out of the Word, and its life is shown day by day in the conduct of the soul united with Christ. Note that Paul applies the entire work of Christ to himself, to his own person, in a confession of justifying faith which may well serve as a model for every Christian.
The conclusion of the apostle with reference to his own life therefore is that he would not be so foolish as to attempt to live by the keeping of the Law, for such an action would render the death of Christ a useless sacrifice. For if righteousness had been in man’s reach by means of the Law, if there had been any chance of obtaining perfection before God in the legal environment, by letting one’s life be an outflow of the requirements of the Law, then there would have been no occasion for the death of Christ, it would have been a vain and superfluous sacrifice. Naturally we must conclude from the argument of the apostle: It is impossible to live in accordance with the Law of God; no observance of the Law and its demands can save us: therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ. Thus Paul’s argument based on the complete atonement through the redemption of Christ was the most effective reproof of the lapse of Peter and of the doctrines of the Judaizing teachers; and the same argument must be brought forward today whenever legalistic demands are made within the Church, whether by teachers or by hearers.
Summary
In further confirmation of his apostleship Paul refers to his stand against the false teachers in Antioch, the recognition of his preaching and ministry by the apostles and leaders in Jerusalem, and his reproof of Peter when the latter did not conduct himself according to the truth of the Gospel.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gal 2:15. We who are Jews, &c. What the Jews thought of themselves, in contradistinction to the Gentiles, see Rom 2:17-23. Dr. Heylin observes, that sinner here, and Gal 2:17 and often elsewhere, signifies “a man in the state of nature, before that application of the merits of Christ which is termed justification.” Christ is not the minister of sin, (as Gal 2:17.) to save such, while they continue in that state. He saves onlythose who, renouncing themselves, are justified through faith in him, and resigned to his Spirit for their purification. These last he justifies, from their entrance into a simple and entire resignation of themselves to him, and dependance on him, which is frequently, in scripture, called faith. See what kind of persons they are in the sequel, where St. Paul describes himself, and, by consequence, all who are in that stat
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 2:15 . A continuation of the address to Peter down to Gal 2:21 . So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Estius, Bengel, Rosenmller, Tittmann ( Opusc . p. 365), Knapp ( Scr. var. arg . II. p. 452 f.), Flatt, Winer, Rckert, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette and Mller, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. Others have looked upon Gal 2:15-21 as addressed to the Galatians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, Reithmayr); but to this view it may be objected, that Paul himself does not indicate the return to his readers until Gal 3:1 , and that the bare, brief reproach in Gal 2:14 would neither correspond to the historical character of so important an event, nor stand in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it (see on Gal 2:11 ); as indeed he himself has in Gal 2:11 ; Gal 2:14 so earnestly prepared the way for, and announced, his opposition, that the reader could not but expect something more than that mere question so hurriedly thrown out of indignant surprise. [92] And how could he have written to his (for the most part) Gentile-Christian readers . . ., without telling them whom he meant thereby? Just as little can we assume that Paul again turns to the Galatians with in Gal 2:16 (Calovius, Paulus), or in Gal 2:17 (Luther, Calvin), or in Gal 2:18 (Cajetanus, Neander); or that he (Erasmus and Estius by way of suggestion, Usteri) has been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs to the speech at Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse (Gal 2:15-21 ) thoroughly unfolding the truth from principles, and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating his opponent harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in view in relating this occurrence to the Galatians especially (among whom indeed these very principles, against which Peter offended, were in great danger), that, up to its grave conclusion (Gal 2:21 ), it must be regarded as an unity as the effusion directed against Peter at Antioch; but, at the same time, it cannot be maintained that Paul spoke the words quite literally thus, as he here, after so long a lapse of time, quotes from lively recollection of the scene which he could not forget.
, .] Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to the reproach expressed in Gal 2:14 with a concession: “ We are Jews by birth , (in this Paul feels the whole advantage of belonging to the ancient holy people of God, Rom 3:1 f., Rom 9:1 ff.), and not sinners of the Gentiles (by Gentile descent).” Gentiles as such, because they are and (Rom 2:12 ; 1Co 9:21 ; Eph 2:12 ), are to the Israelite consciousness and (1Sa 15:18 ; Tob 13:6 ; Wis 10:20 : comp. Luk 18:32 ; Luk 24:7 ; 1Co 6:1 ); and from this the theocratical point of view Paul says , born Gentiles , and as such sinners , as all Gentiles are. Not as if he would look upon the as not sinners; according to the sequel, indeed, they needed justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom 2:3 ; Rom 2:22 f., Gal 5:12 ; Eph 2:2 f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews as the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient theocratic and the promises (Rom 9:4 ), and as belonging to the holy and root-stock of the theocracy (Rom 11:16 ) possessed as their own a religious consecration of life, whereby they stood on a certain stage of righteousness in virtue of which, although it was not that of the true , they were nevertheless exalted far above the Gentiles in their natural state of sinfulness (Eph 2:12 ; Tit 3:5 ). Luther well says: “Nos natura Judaei in legali justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui peccatores sunt, si nobis conferantur, ut qui nec legem nec opera ejus habent; verum non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, externa est ilia justitia nostra.” If had not been unduly understood according to the purely ethical idea (the opposite of sinlessness), the discourse would not have been so broken up as by Elsher, Er. Schmidt, and others: “ Nos natura Judaei, licet non ex gentibus, peccatores ;” comp. Paulus. Hofmann’s view is also similar: “that the apostle excluded from himself that sinfulness only, which was implied in Gentile descent characteristic of those not belonging naturally to the Jewish nationality;” comp. his Schriftbew . I. p. 564, 610 (“our sinfulness does not bear the characteristic Gentile shape”). Paul wishes, not to affirm the different nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles respectively, but to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews over the sinners of Gentile descent; in spite of which advantage, however, etc. (Gal 2:16 ). The contrast lies in the idea of a theocratic sanctitas , peculiar to the born Jew , on the one hand; [93] and on the other, of a profane vitiositas , wherewith the Gentile descent is burdened.
] has the emphasis: We on our part (I and thou), is not to be supplied here (Rckert, Schott); but the concession in Gal 2:15 stands by itself, and the contrast is added without preparation in Gal 2:16 . Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom . II. p. 423; Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg . 105, “quando altera pars per sit evehenda.” The contrast thus strikes one more vividly , and hence the absence of the can afford no ground for calling in question (with Hofmann) the sense of a concession. Comp. also Khner, ad Xen. Mem . i. 3. 15. On the difference between (theocratic bond of union) and (nationality), see Wieseler, ber d. Hebrerbrief 1861, II. p. 28.
[92] Indeed the practical renunciation (not mere denial ) of the principle of Christian freedom required a renewed apology for, and vindication of, the latter; especially as Paul had called Peter to account before the assembled church , whereby the act assumed a solemnity to which the brief question in ver. 14 alone could in no way seem adequate, and least of all could it suffice to procure a duly proportionate satisfaction for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). He does not, however, “demonstrate” his explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s difficulty), but presents it in the most vivid and striking dialectic, compressing everything which would have afforded matter for a very copious demonstration sharply and sternly, towards the defeat of the great opponent who had been unfaithful to himself. Hofmann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul after the concession . had thus explained himself in a detailed statement to Peter, he would have acted absurdly . It would have been absurd, if Paul, in order to say the two or three words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had brought the whole act of the before the assembled church .
[93] Calvin appropriately says: “Quia autem promissio haereditariam benedictionem faciebat, ideo naturale vocatur hoc bonum.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
15 .] Some (Calv., Beza, Grot., Hermann, al.) think that the speech ends with Gal 2:14 ; Calov., al., with Gal 2:15 ; Luther, al., with Gal 2:16 ; Flatt, Neander, al., with Gal 2:18 ; Jowett, that the conversation gradually passes off into the general subject of the Epistle. “Ver. 14,” he says, “is the answer of St. Paul to St. Peter: what follows, is more like the Apostle musing or arguing with himself, with an indirect reference to the Galatians.” But it seems very unnatural to place any break before the end of the chapter. The Apostle recurs to the Galatians again with , ch. Gal 3:1 ; and it is harsh in the extreme to suppose him to pass from his speech to Peter into an address to them with so little indication of the transition. I therefore regard the speech (which doubtless is freely reported, and gives rather the bearing of what was said, than the words themselves, as in Act 22:26 ) as continuing to the end of the chapter, as do Chr., Thdrt., Jer., Est., Beng., Rosenm., Winer, Rckert, Usteri, Olsh., B.-Crus., Meyer, De W.
We (thou and I) by nature (birth) Jews and not sinners from among the Gentiles (he is speaking to Peter from the common ground of their Judaism, and using (ironically?) Judaistic language, in which the Gentiles were , , , (reff.). The putting a comma after , and taking with . . . (Prim. in Est., Elsner, Er.-Schmid, al.), ‘ We, by birth Jews, and, though not from the Gentiles, yet sinners ,’ is absurd), knowing nevertheless (this seems, against Ellic. Exo 2 , the proper force of here, and is the same in sense as his “ but as we know ,” but clearer) that a man is not justified by (as the ground of justification: see Ellic.’s note on the sense of ) the works of the law (not ‘ by works of law ,’ or ‘ on the score of duty done ’ (Peile): this, though following as an inference, and a generalization of the axiom, was not in question here. ‘ The works of the law ,’ just as ‘the faith of Jesus Christ;’ the genitives in both cases being objective the works which have the law (ceremonial and moral) for their object, which are wrought to fulfil the law: Meyer compares , Wis 2:12 , faith which has Jesus Christ for its object, which is reposed in or on Him. On , see note, Rom 1:17 ), (supply, nor is any man justified, and see reff.) except by (as the medium of justification. Ellic. observes that two constructions seem to be mixed . . . ., and . . . . . in this elliptical construction is not elsewhere found: but repeatedly (reff.). The seems to remove further off the hypothesis, which arises in the mind, of the two being united) the faith of (see above) Jesus Christ , we also (as well as the Gentile sinners, q. d., casting aside our legal trust) believed (reff.) on Christ Jesus (notice . . above, . . here. This is not arbitrary. In the general proposition above, . ., as the name of Him on whom faith is to be exercised: here, when Jews receive Him as their Messiah, . ., as bringing that Messiahship into prominence. Perhaps, however, such considerations are but precarious. For example, in this case, the readings are in some confusion. It may be remarked, that the Codex Sinaiticus agrees throughout with our text) that we might be justified by (this time, faith is the ground ) the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because (it is an axiom in our theology that) by the works of the law shall all flesh find no justification (Angl.: ‘ shall no flesh be justified :’ our language not admitting of the logical form of the Greek: but by this transposition of the negative, the sense is not accurately rendered).
There is a difference between Commentators in the arrangement of the foregoing sentence. Meyer follows Lachmann in placing a period after , and understanding at . or . Beza, Hermann, Rckert, Usteri, Ellicott, al., begin a new sentence at , also understanding . But it seems much better, as above (with De W., al.), to carry on the sentence throughout. Meyer’s objection, that thus it would not represent the matter of fact, for Peter and Paul were not converted as . . ., would apply equally to his own arrangement, for they were not converted . . .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:15-21 . JEWS THEMSELVES WERE DRIVEN TO RESORT TO CHRIST AS SINNERS FOR PARDON BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT OBTAIN JUSTIFICATION BY PERFECT OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW NOT THAT THEY MIGHT THEREBY BECOME MORE FREE TO SIN, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF NEW LIFE IN CHRIST, EVEN AS PAUL HIMSELF ENDURED CRUCIFIXION WITH CHRIST, THAT CHRIST MIGHT LIVE IN HIM. Gal 2:15 . As the next verse opens, according to the Greek MSS., with , it is necessary to understand here a finite verb, We are Jews , etc.
The personal narrative breaks on abruptly at this point. Peter drops out of sight, and the Epistle passes from a protest against his vacillation into an elaborate argument against the doctrinal errors of the Pharisaic party, which forms too integral a portion of the whole Epistle to be detached from it. Yet the new strain of thought springs so directly out of the previous remonstrance that it might well have been addressed there and then to the Jewish Christians at Antioch. The outspoken protest against an insidious attempt to force on Gentiles the Jewish rule of life leads naturally to an enquiry what this rule has done for men who are Jews by birth. Did it justify them before God? We know that it did not: they had to turn to Christ for the peace with God which the Law could not give. In short, Gal 2:15-21 are connected at once with the preceding matter and the subsequent; and apparently reproduce in substance an argument which had already been addressed, viva voce , to the circumcision-party at Antioch, whom the Apostle identifies in spirit and policy with the subsequent agitators in Galatia. . This clause expresses pointedly the insolent contempt of the Pharisaic party for Gentiles, who did not belong to the holy nation nor inherit the Law and the Covenants. Yet in spite of these arrogant pretensions to superior sanctity (it is added) they were driven by the verdict of their own conscience to embrace the faith of Christ because they knew that no flesh could possibly be so perfect in obedience to Law as to be thereby justified.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
sinners. Greek. hamartools. Compare App-128 and Mat 9:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] Some (Calv., Beza, Grot., Hermann, al.) think that the speech ends with Gal 2:14; Calov., al., with Gal 2:15; Luther, al., with Gal 2:16; Flatt, Neander, al., with Gal 2:18; Jowett, that the conversation gradually passes off into the general subject of the Epistle. Ver. 14, he says, is the answer of St. Paul to St. Peter: what follows, is more like the Apostle musing or arguing with himself, with an indirect reference to the Galatians. But it seems very unnatural to place any break before the end of the chapter. The Apostle recurs to the Galatians again with , ch. Gal 3:1; and it is harsh in the extreme to suppose him to pass from his speech to Peter into an address to them with so little indication of the transition. I therefore regard the speech (which doubtless is freely reported, and gives rather the bearing of what was said, than the words themselves, as in Acts 22, 26) as continuing to the end of the chapter, as do Chr., Thdrt., Jer., Est., Beng., Rosenm., Winer, Rckert, Usteri, Olsh., B.-Crus., Meyer, De W.
We (thou and I) by nature (birth) Jews and not sinners from among the Gentiles (he is speaking to Peter from the common ground of their Judaism, and using (ironically?) Judaistic language, in which the Gentiles were , , , (reff.). The putting a comma after , and taking with . . . (Prim. in Est., Elsner, Er.-Schmid, al.), We, by birth Jews, and, though not from the Gentiles, yet sinners, is absurd), knowing nevertheless (this seems, against Ellic. ed. 2, the proper force of here, and is the same in sense as his but as we know, but clearer) that a man is not justified by (as the ground of justification: see Ellic.s note on the sense of ) the works of the law (not by works of law, or on the score of duty done (Peile): this, though following as an inference, and a generalization of the axiom, was not in question here. The works of the law, just as the faith of Jesus Christ; the genitives in both cases being objective-the works which have the law (ceremonial and moral) for their object,-which are wrought to fulfil the law: Meyer compares , Wis 2:12,-faith which has Jesus Christ for its object,-which is reposed in or on Him. On , see note, Rom 1:17),-(supply, nor is any man justified, and see reff.) except by (as the medium of justification. Ellic. observes that two constructions seem to be mixed- . . . ., and . . . . . in this elliptical construction is not elsewhere found: but repeatedly (reff.). The seems to remove further off the hypothesis, which arises in the mind, of the two being united) the faith of (see above) Jesus Christ,-we also (as well as the Gentile sinners, q. d., casting aside our legal trust) believed (reff.) on Christ Jesus (notice . . above, . . here. This is not arbitrary. In the general proposition above, . ., as the name of Him on whom faith is to be exercised: here, when Jews receive Him as their Messiah, . ., as bringing that Messiahship into prominence. Perhaps, however, such considerations are but precarious. For example, in this case, the readings are in some confusion. It may be remarked, that the Codex Sinaiticus agrees throughout with our text) that we might be justified by (this time, faith is the ground) the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because (it is an axiom in our theology that) by the works of the law shall all flesh find no justification (Angl.: shall no flesh be justified: our language not admitting of the logical form of the Greek: but by this transposition of the negative, the sense is not accurately rendered).
There is a difference between Commentators in the arrangement of the foregoing sentence. Meyer follows Lachmann in placing a period after , and understanding at . or . Beza, Hermann, Rckert, Usteri, Ellicott, al., begin a new sentence at , also understanding . But it seems much better, as above (with De W., al.), to carry on the sentence throughout. Meyers objection, that thus it would not represent the matter of fact, for Peter and Paul were not converted as …, would apply equally to his own arrangement, for they were not converted …
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:15-21. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, 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: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Paul is arguing against the idea of salvation by works, or salvation by ceremonies; and he shows, beyond all question, that salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Mark the strength of the apostles argument in the 21st verse: If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in sin. That is to say, there was no need for Christ to die, the crucifixion was a superfluity, if men can save themselves by their own good works. Paul is very emphatic about the matter. He puts it as plainly as possible: If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
This exposition consisted of readings from Gal 2:15-21; Galatians 3.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Gal 2:15. , we) Paul, sparing the person of Peter, dismisses the second person singular, and passes to the first person plural, then figuratively to the first person singular, Gal 2:18; lastly, I in its proper [literal] meaning, Gal 2:19-20. We, although Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, viz., we have been: comp. the preterite knowing-we have believed. This we, after the reason[12] has been interposed in the way of parenthesis, is taken up again in the following verse with epitasis [an emphatic addition, viz., even we] and reaches to we have believed.-, by nature) not merely proselytes.- , not sinners of the Gentiles) Paul openly declares it as a thing acknowledged, that the Gentiles, inasmuch as they did not even possess the law, are sinners, while the Jews, on the contrary, had the law or even works; Tit 3:5. Then by the way he grants, that it is only in Christ that the Jews can have communion with them; but he especially declares, as a thing acknowledged, the justification of the Gentiles by faith, and he also infers the same thing concerning the Jews. To this refers the expression sinners, Gal 2:17, note.[13]
[12] By aetiologia. See Append.
[13] Sinners such as the Gentiles heretofore were justly regarded.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:15
Gal 2:15
We being Jews by nature,-[The outspoken protest against an insidious attempt to force on Gentiles the Jewish law leads naturally to an inquiry what this law has done for men who are Jews by birth. Did it justify them before God? They knew it did not. They had to turn to Christ for the peace with God which the law could not give.]
and not sinners of the Gentiles,-[This expresses the insolent contempt of Judaizers for Gentiles, who did not belong to the holy nation nor inherit the law and the covenants. Yet in spite of these arrogant pretensions to superior sanctity they were driven by their own consciousness of being sinners to embrace the faith in Christ because they knew that no flesh could possibly be so perfect in obedience to law as to be thereby justified.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
We who are
Paul here quotes from his words to Peter when he withstood him at Antioch to show the Galatians that, whatever the legalists may have pretended, Peter and he were in perfect accord doctrinally. Paul appealed to the common belief of Peter and himself as a rebuke of Peter’s inconsistent practice.
sinners Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Jews: Mat 3:7-9, Joh 8:39-41, Rom 4:16, Eph 2:3
sinners: Mat 9:11, Mar 7:26-28, Act 22:21, Rom 3:9, Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12, Tit 3:3
Reciprocal: Mat 15:26 – It is not Joh 9:34 – wast Act 10:11 – and a Act 10:45 – the Gentiles Rom 2:9 – of the Jew Rom 2:17 – thou art Rom 11:17 – being Phi 3:7 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:15. , -we by nature Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners. Primasius, Elsner, Schmidt, Bagge, Grotius, and Brown connect with -nos natura Judaei, licet non ex Gentibus, peccatores,-we being by nature Jews, and not of the Gentiles, yet sinners; or, Jews, and though not Gentiles, still sinners. True, the apostle concludes all under sin; and Jews are not only no exception, but their sinfulness has special aggravations. Rom 2:3; Rom 2:22; Rom 3:9; Rom 3:23-24. Yet he does not here say that the Jews are not sinners, but the heathen are characterized as sinners from the Jewish standpoint-sinners inasmuch as they are Gentiles, or in consequence of being Gentiles; and it would be as unfair to infer from this language, on the one hand, that those who were by birth Jews were therefore not sinners (Hofmann), as, on the other hand, that the Gentilism of the contrasted party excused their sin. The term is not taken in a strict spiritual sense, but with the signification it carried in Jewish parlance as a designation of all who were beyond the limits of the theocracy. The apostle thus speaks relatively: Men born Gentiles, being without the law, were by the privileged Jews reckoned sinners. Rom 2:12; Eph 2:12; 1Co 9:21; Luk 18:32; Luk 24:7, compared with Mat 26:45; Mat 18:17; 1Sa 15:18; 1Ma 2:44; Tob 13:6; Hom. Clement. 11.16, p. 241, ed. Dressel. It is perhaps better to supply than . We (himself and Peter) are Jews by nature, not of Gentile extraction, and therefore, from our national point of view, sinners. Wieseler, according to his view, takes the to be Paul and the other Jewish believers like-minded with him. The stress is on , and normally follows an affirmative assertion. The dative (Winer, 36, 6) affirms that they were Jews in blood and descent, not proselytes,- , Theodore Mopsuest. See under Eph 2:3. But the opposite phrase has not the very same meaning, as it signifies, though not so distinctively, out of or belonging to the Gentiles, as in Act 15:23. The may have a consecutive force: Gentiles, and being such, sinners. Php 4:9; Mat 23:32. The particle is not needed in such a connection, nor is there an ellipse, as Rckert, Schott, and others suppose. Fritzsche, Rom 10:19, vol. 2.423; Donaldson, 563. The verse seems in a word to be a concessive statement to strengthen what follows: Though we are Jews by descent, and not Gentiles who as such are regarded by us from our elevation as sinners, yet our Judaism, with all its boasted superiority, could not bring us justification. Born and bred Jews as we are, we were obliged to renounce our trust in Judaism, for it was powerless to justify us. Why then go back to it, and be governed by it, as if we had not abandoned it at all?
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Law and Grace
Gal 2:15-21
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
1. The drift toward Jewish rites and ceremonies. When the early Church came into existence at Pentecost, it was formed from the saved composed of Jews, and proselyte Jews. For a period, the converts to the Church were mostly from among the Jews. Ere long, however, the Lord sent Paul to the Gentiles and through the ministry of other Apostles as well, Gentiles were saved.
With the entrance of Gentile Christians into the one Body which is the Church, there was an effort on the part of the Jewish Christians to compel the Gentile believers to adhere to Jewish rites and customs. Ail of these had been nailed to the Cross, and had been done away.
The result of this effort on the part of the Hebrews was, that salvation itself was made more or less subject to Jewish Law-works. Against this the Holy Ghost through Paul gave strenuous assault.
The Book of Galatians is written to establish forever the liberty of saints in Christ, and the folly of the effort to enforce the rites of Jewish circumcision and other Jewish Law-works upon the Church.
2. Today the Church is practically all Gentile. There are some three hundred thousand Jews in the world who are Christians. The Church, however, is dominated by Gentile believers.
The Word of God plainly teaches the value of Christian living and the potency of good works, but that value and potency lies entirely in the realm of Christian rewards.
3. The glories of Grace are magnified only when salvation is recognized as by faith apart from the works of the Law. If we are saved, in whole or in part, by what we do or by what we are, just to that extent Grace is no more Grace. If we are saved by what we do, or by what we are, just to that extent we rob Christ of the glory of His suffering. If we are saved by what we do, or what we are, to that extent we seek to change the plaudits and the praise from the Lamb who was worthy, to the coronation of our own works.
I. JUSTIFICATION NOT BY THE LAW (Gal 2:16)
1. Paul’s contention against Peter. When Peter came to Antioch he separated himself from certain Gentile believers for fear of some Jews who were of the circumcision. The result of Peter’s act was that others were about to be carried away with his dissimulation. Then it was that Paul withstood Peter to his face, for Peter was to be blamed. The difficulty was not a matter of mere personalities, for Paul and Peter were both men of God. The trouble arose because Paul saw that the Truth of the Gospel was at stake.
2. Paul’s position in the faith. Before every one present Paul turned to Peter and said, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Then Paul uttered his great phillipic: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by faith of Jesus Christ.”
How are we saved? Is it by what we do? Is it by becoming converts to Judaistic rites and ceremonies? Far be it. We are justified by the faith of Christ. We are saved by faith, apart from the deeds of the Law, for, “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.”
II. THE BANE OF PREACHING LAW-WORKS FOR SALVATION (Gal 2:20-21)
1. Paul saw in salvation by the Law, nothing but certain condemnation. In verse seventeen he confessed that if he sought to be justified by the Law, and yet he was a sinner, breaking the Law, he was doomed to certain condemnation. Herein is the weakness of the Law. It cannot save, simply, because no man can keep the Law and sin not.
God has spoken and His words are final. Hear what He says, and hear His conclusion! “All have sinned”; “there is none righteous, no, not one”; “They are all gone out of the way.” What is the conclusion? “That the whole world might stand guilty before God.” What then? “A man is not justified by the works of the Law.”
2. Paul saw, in any hope of salvation by the Law, the frustration of Grace. He said, “I do not frustrate the Grace of God.” Here is the bane of salvation by works-Grace is defamed, and made impotent.
Grace begins where worth ends. Grace is the kindness of God toward the guilty and the unworthy. Sin, and the utter helplessness of the sinner is the background that magnifies the Grace of God and makes it to stand forth in resplendent glory.
3. Paul saw in salvation by Law that the death of Christ was made vain. Here are Paul’s words, “If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain.” It is even so. If we are saved by what we do; why should Christ have gone to Calvary? Christ died because there was no other way; the same as there was no other name, whereby we might be saved.
Paul, knowing that righteousness came by the Blood of the Cross, looked with great joy back to that Cross, as he proclaimed: “I am crucified with Christ.” He saw in his crucified Lord; his own crucifixion. He knew that when Christ died, he died. He realized, therefore, that, in Christ, he was free from the Law.
III. A VITAL QUESTION (Gal 3:2-3)
1. A retrospective. The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle, is asking the Galatians, and us with them, to look back to the day when they were born again, and when the Spirit of God came to dwell within them. He says, “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?”
He answers the question just asked, by asking another. “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
The Apostle is very positive that the new life is from the Spirit, and not from the works of the Law.
2. A perspective. With the matter of regeneration settled, apart from the works of the Law, and apart from works of any kind, the Holy Spirit looks on to the perfecting of the newborn life. Now He asks,-“Are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
This is a vital matter. If the new life, which we possess as saints, is God-begotten, shall that same life be nurtured, made potent, and perfected by the flesh?
Did not the Spirit say, “That if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die”? Instead of trusting in the deeds of the flesh, we should mortify them. We who are sons of God, should be led by the Spirit of God. We should walk in the Spirit, serve in the Spirit, bear the fruit of the Christian life in the Spirit.
IV. THE WORKS OF THE LAW CARRY A CURSE (Gal 3:10-13)
1. The reason that Law-works produce a curse. Verse ten says, “As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them.”
If we would stand approved before God by the works of the Law, we must fulfil those works to the completion. There must be nothing lacking, nothing by way of subtraction from the full requirements of a holy and righteous God.
We are reminded of how the Holy Spirit said, “What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.” Can you imagine a sinful and sinning man stepping in under the righteous demands of an inerrant Law, a Law expressive of the holiness and righteousness of God, and seeking to be accepted by that Law?
Before one steps under the pale of the Law, let him remember that the curse of the Law is ready to fall upon every one who comes short of the demands of the Law. It is by the Law, that every mouth is stopped, and that the whole world stands guilty before God.
2. Wherein the curse of the Law is removed. How blessed are the words: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us”! Our Lord Jesus Christ knew no sin, did no sin, and in Him there was no sin. Such an One was willing to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. He took our sins. We take, by faith, His righteousness.
There is no other possible way by which God could be just and justify the sinner. The blessings of redemption must come to us through Jesus Christ, or else we must forever remain cursed by the Law.
In the death of Christ, the majesty of the Law is upheld by the Law of substitutionary suffering; and, at the same time, every legal demand of the Law is sustained.
In saving the sinner, God does not trample a holy and a righteous Law under His feet; He does not vitiate its power, or denounce its purity. He rather magnifies the Law by meeting its just demands, and bearing its curse.
It is not the Law that is frail; it is man. The Law was made impotent because man was impotent to keep it.
V. THE INABILITY OF THE LAW SUPPLANTED THE LAW (Gal 3:21-22)
We are tracking along the same truth which has just been presented, but we have an added suggestion.
1. The Law could not give life. The statement of verse twenty-one is positive: “If there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law.” The only reason that Christ died for sinners is because the Law could not save a Lawbreaker. It is just as true to say that no man can keep the Law; therefore, no man can be saved by the Law.
2. What then serveth the Law? This is the question asked in verse nineteen. The answer is plain. The Law was added because of transgressions. The Law came that the knowledge of sin might abound. Man had not realized the fact or the enormity of his sin, unless the Law had come to show sin up, in all of its heinousness. The Law made sin exceeding sinful. The Law, with its righteousness, made sin appear sin. It was a looking-glass that shows up an evil heart, a heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
3. The Law became our schoolmaster. The word “schoolmaster” in our text suggests a pedagogue, whip in hand, driving us unto Christ. The pedagogue realizes the utter helplessness of our becoming subject unto the Law, therefore, it took us by the hand and led us unto the Saviour, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Had we been saved by the Law, faith had not been required; but since we are saved by Christ, we are shut up to faith. Verse twenty-six says, “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” How thankful we should be because, when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that they might receive the adoption of sons!
VI. TO SEEK JUSTIFICATION BY LAW IS TO FALL FROM GRACE (Gal 5:3-4)
Three things are before us.
1. If we put ourselves under a part of the Law, we must place ourselves under the whole Law. He who would insist on circumcision as a part of the Jewish Law-works, should also put himself under every other Judaistic and God-given Law. If we would seek salvation by ceremonials, we must fulfil all of the ceremonials; if we would seek salvation by the moral Laws, we must do everything that the moral Law requires.
2. If we place ourselves under the Law, Christ is of no profit to us. For this cause it must either be Christ, or the Law. It cannot be Christ, and the Law, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law.”
3. If we put ourselves under the Law for salvation, we are fallen from Grace. How often have we been asked,-“Do you believe in falling from Grace?” Do we? How else could we believe in the Bible? God plainly says that every one who seeks to be justified by the Law, has fallen from Grace. What does He mean? He does not mean that the man who is saved by Grace falls from Grace. He does not mean that one who is born again can be unborn. He means what He says, that one who seeks to enter into life by keeping the Law, has sidestepped, departed from Grace.
This is no light matter. If salvation is by Grace alone, and not by works, the one who falls from Grace leaves God’s appointed pathway to life, is left in indescribable and certain death.
AN ILLUSTRATION
THE RHODIANS
“Plutarch, tells us that the Rhodians appealed to the Romans for help, and one suggested that they should plead the good turns which they had done for Rome. This was a plea difficult to make strong enough, very liable to be disputed, and not at all likely to influence so great a people as the Romans, who would not readily consider themselves to be debtors to so puny a state as that of Rhodes. The Rhodians were, however, wiser than their counsellor, and took up another line of argument, which was abundantly successful: they pleaded the favors which in former times the Romans had bestowed upon them, and urged these as a reason why the great nation should not cast off a needy people for whom they had already done so much.
Herein is wisdom. How idle it would be for us to plead our good works with the great God! What we have done for Him is too faulty and too questionable to be pleaded; but what He has done for us is grand argument, great in itself and potent with an immutable Benefactor. Legal pleading soon meets a rebuff; yea, it trembles even before it leaves the pleader’s mouth, and makes him ashamed while he is yet at his argument. Far otherwise fares it with the humble gratitude which gathers strength as it recalls each deed of love, and comforts itself with a growing assurance that He who has done so much will not lose His labor, but will do even more, till He has perfected that which concerneth us. Sinners run fearful risks when they appeal to justice: their wisdom is to cast themselves upon free Grace. Our past conduct is a logical reason for our condemnation; it is in God’s past mercy to us that we have accumulated argument for hope. The Latin sentence hath great truth in it, Deus donando debet, God by giving one mercy pledges Himself to give another; He is not indebted to our merit, His only obligation is that which arises out of His own covenant promise, of which His gifts are pledges and bonds. Let us remember this when next we urge our suit with Him.”
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Gal 2:15. The Jews had always considered the Gentiles to be sinners as a class, and so inferior as a class that the term “dogs” even was applied to them (Mat 15:27-27). In this verse Paul is not ignoring the field of history, nor is he denying all claims of superiority for the Jews. However, he reminds Peter that such a rating is from a national standpoint and not due to any moral or personal goodness that they possessed. (He had refuted such an idea in Rom 3:9-18.) That is why he makes the statement that they were Jews by nature.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:15. Many commentators close here the speech of Paul to Peter; others with Gal 2:16; still others with Gal 2:18. But the words, we who are Jews by nature, would not suit the Galatians, most of whom were Gentiles by birth, and there is no mark of a return of the speech to the Galatians till Gal 3:1.
We Jews by birth, and not sinners, i.e., gross sinners without law and without God, like the heathen. The two words were almost synonymous in the mouth of the Jew. Comp. Mat 9:13; Luk 7:34; Rom 2:12; Eph 2:12.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
St. Paul having fully vindicated his own authority as an apostle, from the imputations of the false apostles, he comes next to vindicate his doctrine, namely, the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, which he had formerly preached to the Galatians, and which, in his absence, the false apostles had endeavoured to subvert and overthrow, urging the strict observation of the ceremonial law, as necessary to justification and salvation. Our apostle, therefore, to strike at the root of this dangerous error, excludes all works of our own from having any influence upon our justification.
Now, this he proveth, 1. Because they that were Jews by birth, and so federally the holy people of God, found it necessary to renounce the works of the law in point of justification, and to seek righteousness only through faith in Christ, as well as the profane idolatrous sinners, of the Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenant of God; For by the works of the law shall no flesh, neither Jew nor Gentile, be justified; that is, acquitted from the guilt of sin, and discharged from obnoxiousness to the wrath of God.
Now, no obedience of our scan obtain this, because of the great imperfection which cleaves to it, and because God will have all boasting excluded, By grace ye are saved, through faith: not of works, lest any man should boast; but that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord. Eph 2:8
Observe here, that the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works, was early, very early opposed by Satan and false teachers. It being articulus et cadentis ecclesiae, a fundamental article of our Christian faith, our comfort stands or fall with it; no wonder then it is strenuously opposed.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Gal 2:15-16. We St. Paul, to spare St. Peter, drops the first person singular, and speaks in the plural number; Gal 2:18, he speaks in the first person singular again by a figure, and without a figure, Gal 2:19, &c. Who are Jews by nature By birth, and not proselytes. As in the first part of his discourse, where the apostle speaks only of himself and Peter, he meant to speak of all the teachers of the gospel; so in this second part, where he describes his own state, he in effect describes the state of believers in general. And not sinners of the Gentiles That is, not sinful Gentiles; not such gross, enormous, abandoned sinners as the heathen generally are. It is justly observed by Dr. Whitby here, that the word sinners in Scripture signifies great and habitual sinners; and that the Jews gave the Gentiles that appellation, on account of their idolatry and other vices. Accordingly, Mat 26:45, the clause, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, means, is delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, as is evident from Mat 20:18-19. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law Not even of the moral law, much less of the ceremonial; but by the faith of Jesus Christ The faith which Jesus Christ hath enjoined and requires as the means of mens justification, namely, faith in the gospel, in its important truths and precious promises: or, rather, by faith in Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah, the Son of God, in whom alone there is salvation for guilty, depraved, weak, and wretched sinners; the faith whereby we make application to him, and rely on him for salvation, present and eternal: learn of him as a Teacher, depend on him as a Mediator, become subject to him as a Governor, and prepare to meet him as a Judge. See on Rom 3:28; Rom 4:1-25. Even we And how much more must the Gentiles, who have still less pretence to depend on their own works? have believed in Jesus Christ To this great purpose; that we might be justified As has been said before; by faith in Christ This is the method that we, who were brought up Jews, have taken, as being thoroughly sensible we could be justified and saved no other way: for by the works of the law, whether ceremonial or moral, shall no flesh living, whether Jew or Gentile, be justified Since no human creature is capable of fully answering its demands, or can pretend to have paid a universal and unsinning obedience to it. Hitherto the apostle had been considering that single question, Are Christians obliged to observe the ceremonial law? But he here insensibly goes further, and by citing this passage, shows that what he spoke directly of the ceremonial, included also the moral law. For David undoubtedly did so, when he said, (Psa 143:2, the place here referred to,) In thy sight shall no man living be justified; which the apostle likewise explains, (Rom 3:19-20,) in such a manner as can agree only with the moral law.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 15
By nature; by birth.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, 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: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Verse sixteen seems to say three times in quick succession, that the law doesn’t cut it in salvation – I rather think Paul was trying very hard to get that point across to his readers.
Darby translates the verse this way. “We, Jews by nature, and not sinners of [the] nations”
The “we” being Peter and Paul – we – Jews by our very nature and heritage, and not lost as the Gentiles, know that we aren’t justified by the law, but by faith is the thought of verse fifteen. Another clear declaration of salvation by faith in Christ alone, without any part of the law.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
2:15 {3} We [who are] Jews {o} by nature, and not {p} sinners of the Gentiles,
(3) The second part of this epistle, the state of which is this: we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus without the works of the Law. Which thing he propounds in such a way, that first of all he meets with an objection (for I also, he says, am a Jew, that no man may say against me that I am an enemy to the Law), and afterward, he confirms it by the express witness of David.
(o) Even though we are Jews, yet we preach justification by faith, because we know without any doubt that no man can be justified by the Law.
(p) So the Jews called the Gentiles, because they were strangers to God’s covenant.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Some interpreters believe Paul’s words to Peter continue through the end of chapter 2 (e.g., NASB, NIV, NKJV). [Note: See also The New Scofield Reference Bible note.] Others believe they end with Gal 2:14 (e.g., RSV, NRSV, NET). It seems more likely to me that they end with Gal 2:14.
"This verse [15] and the next form a single, overloaded sentence in the Greek; they have been aptly described as ’Paul’s doctrine of justification in a nutshell’ . . ." [Note: Fung, p. 112. His quotation is of W. Schmithals, Paul and James, p. 73.]
Unsaved Jews regarded Gentiles as "sinners." Paul ironically referred to them as that since Peter was discriminating against them by behaving as he had.
"This characterization at once focuses attention on the sharp distinction between Jew and Gentile, for what made the Gentiles sinners in the estimation of the Jews was not only that they did not observe the law but also that they did not even possess it and consequently lacked the possibility of obtaining righteousness through it." [Note: Fung, p. 113.]
Paul went on to remind Peter that both of them knew that God does not justify people (declare them righteous) because they keep the Mosaic Law, part of which involved dietary regulations.
". . . Paul’s recital of his address to Peter in Antioch is progressively colored by polemic against his Galatian detractors and, as it were, gradually shades into a theological discussion with his readers." [Note: Ibid., p. 105.]
". . . Paul intends by the phrase ’works of the law’ the Jewish way of life, described in Gal 2:14 by the word iodaikos [like a Jew], characterized by exclusiveness and epitomized by the murder of Christ and the persecution of his followers, and argues that to return to that way of life would be to make Christ a servant of sin." [Note: R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, "Sacred Violence and ’Works of Law.’ ’Is Christ Then an Agent of Sin?’ (Galatians 2:17)," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):62.]
Justification comes by believing in Christ, period (cf. Act 16:31). Paul, Peter, and the other believers assembled had simply believed in Christ (cf. Job 9:1-2). Paul stated as a maxim that obedience to the Law never justified anybody (Rom 3:20). [Note: On Paul’s relationship to Judaism, see Heikki Raisanen, "Gal 2:16 and Paul’s Break with Judaism," New Testament Studies 31 (October 1985):543-53.]
"This [Gal 2:16] is one of the most important verses in the Epistle. . . .
"The threefold repetition of the doctrine of justification by faith in this one verse is important, because it shows the importance the apostle gives to the doctrine. Besides, the three phrases increase in emphasis." [Note: Boice, pp. 448, 449.]
"Justification should not be confused with forgiveness, which is the fruit of justification, nor with atonement, which is the basis of justification. Rather it is the favorable verdict of God, the righteous Judge, that one who formerly stood condemned has now been granted a new status at the bar of divine justice." [Note: George, pp. 191-92.]
"To be justified means to be declared righteous before God, that is, to enjoy a status or standing of being in a right relationship with God, of being accepted by him." [Note: Fung, p. 113.]
In Gal 2:15-21 Paul was evidently answering charges that his critics had leveled against him. It would be easier for us to interpret these verses if we knew what those charges were. As it is we can only infer what they were from Paul’s answers.