{"id":29041,"date":"2022-09-24T13:05:27","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:05:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-216\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:05:27","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:05:27","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-216","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-216\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:16"},"content":{"rendered":"

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. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

16<\/strong>. The force of the prepositions is obscured by the rendering of A. V. Literally, ‘Knowing that man is not justified from (i.e. as the result of) works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from (i.e. as the result of) faith in Christ, and not from works of the law; for from works of the law shall no flesh be justified.’ In the language of St Paul man is justified from<\/em> faith, and through<\/em> faith and by<\/em> faith (dative without preposition expressed, Rom 3:28<\/span>), never for<\/em> or on the score of faith. In Rom 3:30<\/span>, God is said to justify “the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith”, where the emphasis is not on the prepositions but on faith<\/em>. This is clear from the fact that whereas in this passage God is said to justify the Jews from<\/em> faith, in Gal 3:8<\/span>, He is said to justify the Gentiles from<\/em> faith, comp. Heb 10:38<\/span>, and Hab 2:4<\/span> LXX. Vers. In Php 3:9<\/span>, we meet with the expression ‘the righteousness which is of God upon (condition of) faith’.<\/p>\n

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

Nothing in my hand I bring;<\/p>\n

Simply to Thy Cross I cling.<\/p>\n

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

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

even we<\/em> ] Better, we also,<\/strong> as well as Gentile converts.<\/p>\n

for by the works justified<\/em> ] This is a quotation, not quite literal, from Psa 143:2<\/span>. It is made also in Rom 3:20<\/span>, being there introduced for a special purpose, as referring to Jews, by the words, “We know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law”. It is here used for a similar purpose, and as a decision from which no appeal was possible. See note on c. Gal 3:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

no flesh<\/em> ] a Hebraism = no human being.<\/p>\n

Note on Ch. Gal 2:16<\/span><\/p>\n

The Revised Version renders, ‘knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ’, giving in the margin ‘but only’, as an alternative of ‘save’. Alford translates ‘except’. Though a full discussion of the use of the Greek particles here employed is beyond the scope of this work, yet the question involved is of such momentous issues, that the correct rendering of the passage must be not only stated, but maintained. Two particles, of which the literal English equivalent is ‘if not’, occur in combination about 150 times in the New Testament. In the large majority of passages in which they are found, there can be on difference of opinion as to their force or proper translation, viz. ‘if not’, ‘unless’, ‘except’, In a few passages, however, it is impossible to adopt one of these renderings without sacrificing either sense or truth, and reducing the statement to an absurdity. To the instance quoted in the note on ch. Gal 1:19<\/span> (Luk 4:26-27<\/span>, where the A.V. is of course wrong), may be added Mat 12:4<\/span>, and Rev 21:27<\/span>, where it is right in rendering ‘but only’ and ‘but’. It may be observed that the question is not whether these particles ever lose their exceptive<\/em> force (see Bp Lightfoot, note on ch. Gal 1:19<\/span>, and Prof. Scholefield, Preface to 3rd edition of Sermons on Justification by Faith, pp. 35 37). Nor again is it here necessary to explain the refinements of Greek idiom by reference to the subtleties of Greek thought. The transition from the exceptive<\/em>, ‘save’, to the exclusive<\/em>, ‘but only’, is in certain passages undoubted and may be logically deduced. It is clear that for the purposes of correct translation<\/em> (i.e. if we would convey to an English reader the true sense of the original), we must employ ‘but’, or ‘but only’ in certain passages as the equivalent of particles which are elsewhere rendered by ‘save’ or ‘except’. It remains to determine which is the just rendering in the passage under consideration. Now, if words have any meaning, the R.V. (which is ex hypothesi<\/em> a correction<\/em> of the A.V.) teaches what has been termed “a mixed justification by faith and works”, the efficacy of works for justification<\/em> being conditional on the addition or admixture of faith. This, however, is in direct contradiction of what immediately follows “we believed Christ that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not<\/em> by the works of the law”. Had the Apostle allowed works any place as a ground of the justification of a sinner, he would either have omitted the last clause or have written, “and (or, together with) the works of the law”. But this would have been to contradict his plainest assertions in another Epistle. In Rom 3:21<\/span> we read, “But now apart from law<\/em> the righteousness of God has been manifested, even the righteousness of God through faith<\/em> in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe<\/em> ”; and, Rom 3:28<\/em><\/span>, “We reckon then that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (perhaps, works of law, i.e. acts of obedience to any<\/em> law, ceremonial or moral)”. Compare Rom 4:4-6<\/span>. In all these passages St Paul uses an adverb which means ‘apart from’, ‘independently of’, rather than ‘without’. The sinner is justified through faith only, apart from any works of his own. Christ’s fulfilment of the law His perfect obedience and His atoning death needs not and admits not any supplement on the part of the sinner to satisfy the righteousness of God. We who believe “are accounted righteous before God, only<\/em> for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith<\/em>, and not for our own works or deservings”, Art. xi. But though “the works of the law” have absolutely no part in our justification, because the faith through which we are justified is ‘ apart from<\/em> ’ them, yet St Paul nowhere asserts that we are justified without<\/em> works. That would be sheer antinomianism. Good works are “the fruits of faith”, and “by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit”, Art. xii. For a further illustration of St Paul’s teaching on the relation of faith and works, compare Eph 2:8-10<\/span>, and for his doctrine of justification by faith ‘apart from’ works, Php 3:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

That a man is not justified by the works of the law – <\/B>See the notes at Rom 1:17<\/span>; Rom 3:20<\/span>, Rom 3:26<\/span>; Rom 4:5<\/span>.<\/P>

But by the faith of Jesus Christ – <\/B>By believing on Jesus Christ; see the Mar 16:16<\/span> note; Rom 3:22<\/span> note.<\/P>

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

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

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

    \n
  1. Either deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may,<\/li>\n
  2. Admit that the deed was done, and set up as a defense that he had a right to do it.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (5) It is not that the righteousness of the Lord Jesus is transferred to his people.<\/P>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16<\/span><\/p>\n

    Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Christian doctrine of justification<\/strong><\/p>\n


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

    (1)<\/strong> deny that he performed the act charged on him, or he may<\/p>\n

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


    II. <\/strong>Charges of a very serious nature are brought against man by his Maker. It is not a charge merely affecting the external conduct, nor merely affecting the heart; it is a charge of entire alienation from <\/strong>God–a charge, in short, of total depravity (see especially Rom 1:1-32<\/span>; Rom 2:1-29<\/span>; Rom 3:1-31<\/span>.). That this charge is a very serious one, no one can doubt; that it deeply affects the human character and standing, is as clear. It is a charge brought in the Bible; and God appeals, in proof of it, to the history of the world, to every mans conscience, and to the life of every one who has lived; and on these facts, and on His own power in searching the hearts, and in knowing what is in man, He rests the proof of the charge.<\/p>\n


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


    IV. <\/strong>This other system of justification is <\/strong>that which is revealed in the gospel by the faith of the Lord Jesus. It does not consist in either of the following things:<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

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

    Justification of sinners<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Justification has been defined to be an act of God s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His right; or, to declare judicially the innocence of the person justified (see Deu 25:1<\/span>; 1Ki 8:32<\/span>; Mat 12:37<\/span>; Rom 8:33<\/span>). The gist of St. Pauls argument with St. Peter is as follows: If thou, being a Jew, livest, as thy usual habit, as a Gentile, how is it that thou art compelling the Gentiles to adopt Jewish customs as necessary to salvation? We truly are by nature Jews, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; we are not only not Gentiles but not even proselytes; we are of pure Jewish descent, and so enjoy the highest spiritual privileges; but yet, since we know that no man is justified by the works of the law, nor in any manner except through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ in order that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; for it is a certain truth, that by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Here we have–<\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>The absolute exclusion of works from the office of justifying.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>Heavy charges are brought against man by his Maker. He is charged<\/p>\n

    (1)<\/strong> with violating the law of God;<\/p>\n

    (2)<\/strong> with having no love to his Maker;<\/p>\n

    (3)<\/strong> with possessing a corrupt, proud, unbelieving heart;<\/p>\n

    (4)<\/strong> with being alienated from God by wicked works.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>It is impossible for man to vindicate himself from these charges.<\/p>\n

    (1)<\/strong> He cannot show that the things charged have not been committed;<\/p>\n

    (2)<\/strong> nor that, having been committed, he had a right to do them. He is without excuse.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The office of justifying is ascribed to faith only.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>The principal cause of our justification is the love of God the Father.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>The meritorious cause is the active and passive obedience, the perfect righteousness and vicarious death, of God the <\/strong>Son.<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>The efficient cause is the operation of God the Holy Ghost.<\/p>\n

    4. <\/strong>The instrumental cause is faith in Christ. (Emilius<\/em> Bayley,<\/em> B. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    The nature of justification<\/strong><\/p>\n

    1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>Justification is not the Lords making one who was before unjust to be just by works of habitual and inherent righteousness in him. This is to confound justification with sanctification. But it is a judicial action, whereby God absolves the sinner from death and wrath, and adjudges him to life eternal: for the word expressing this grace here, is a judicial word taken from courts of justice, which being attributed to the judge, is opposed to condemn (Rom 8:33-34<\/span>), and so signifies to absolve and give sentence.<\/p>\n

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

    3. <\/strong>The works which are excluded from having hand in justification, are not only those which are done before conversion, but also which follow after, and flow from the working of Gods Spirit in us: even those works are imperfect (Isa 64:6<\/span>), and so cannot make us completely righteous; and we do owe them to God in the meantime (Luk 17:10<\/span>), and so they cannot satisfy Divine justice for faults in time past. They are the work of Gods Spirit in us (Php 2:13<\/span>), and so we can merit nothing at Gods hand by them: for He excludes the works of the law in general.<\/p>\n

    4. <\/strong>That, through virtue whereof we are thus justified and absolved by God, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, performed by Himself while He was here on earth, both in doing what we should have done (Mat 3:15<\/span>), and suffering what we ought to have suffered (Gal 3:15<\/span>); which righteousness is not inherent in us, but imputed to us (Rom 5:17<\/span>); as the sum of money paid by the cautioner stands good in law for the debtor, so we are said to be justified by the faith of Christ, or faith in Jesus Christ, as laying hold upon His righteousness, which is imputed to us, and by which alone we are made righteous.<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

    9. <\/strong>He must be convinced also of the value of Christs merits to satisfy Divine justice.<\/p>\n

    10.<\/strong> Being thus convinced, he must by faith receive and rest upon Jesus Christ and that most perfect righteousness of His, by making his soul adhere and cleave to the word of promise, wherein Christ is offered (Act 2:39<\/span>; Act 2:41<\/span>), whereupon follows the real justification and absolution of him who so does. (James<\/em> Fergusson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Self-righteousness destroyed<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    On justifying righteousness in connection with true faith<\/strong><\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>The doctrine of justification.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>Guard here against two errors:<\/p>\n

    (1)<\/strong> That of those who conceive of justification as originating with the creature instead of the Creator;<\/p>\n

    (2)<\/strong> That Of those who exclude man, not only from meritorious acting, but from all concern in the reception of the boon.<\/p>\n

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

    3. <\/strong>Justification is vouchsafed to rebellious men on precisely the same ground as if they had continued steadfast and immoveable in their allegiance.<\/p>\n

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


    II. <\/strong>The nature of the faith by which we are justified.<\/p>\n

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

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

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


    III. <\/strong>The evidences which scripture furnishes of a justified condition.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>Indications of which we are personally conscious (Act 24:16; 1Ti 1:5<\/span>; 1Ti 1:19<\/span>; 1Pe 3:16<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>External manifestations which our temper, converse, and ordinary transactions supply (Php 4:8<\/span>). (John Smyth,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Justification and its method<\/strong><\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>The nature of justification. It includes–<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>The pardon of sin <\/strong>(Act 13:38-39<\/span>; Rom 4:5<\/span>; Rom 4:8<\/span>). Thus God remits the penalties of sin. Upon this ground of a moral concurrence in the mind of the sinner with the reasons and intentions of the Redeemers sufferings, God is graciously willing to remit the punishment of sin, in its greatest and most awful inflictions, those which are spiritual and eternal.<\/p>\n

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

    But to guard this doctrine from abuse it is necessary to remember–<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>That it does not mean that Christ has taken the part of the sinner against the law or against God. None ever gave such honour to the law as Christ did.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>Those who are justified are not thereby declared to be innocent. God justifies the ungodly. Sin remains the same, and although its penalty has been remitted by an act of grace, the pardoned should come before Gad with the most <\/strong>profound humiliation (Eze 16:62-63<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>Justification depends upon personal trust. God does not save the careless or the unbelieving, or those who cease to confide in Him.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The method of justification. To have a complete view of this method we must consider the originating, the meritorious, and the instrumental cause of justification.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>The originating cause is the love of God (Joh 3:16<\/span>; Tit 3:4-5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>The meritorious cause is the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. His life was absolutely holy. In Him there was no sin. Yet He suffered, as none had ever suffered before; but He suffered for the guilty, the just for the unjust. It is entirely agreeable to the dictates of reason and justice that the perfect righteousness of another (if such could be found) should be available, under a constitution of Divine mercy, to procure the pardon and acceptance as righteous of sinful beings, who are otherwise under an absolute incapacity of obtaining these blessings. It is manifest that all the conditions essential to a <\/strong>Redeemer have been fulfilled by Christ (Rom 3:21<\/span>; Rom 3:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>The instrumental cause of justification is faith. We are justified by the faith of Christ.<\/p>\n

    The faith which justifies has been defined as including three distinct but concurrent exertions of the mind.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>The assent of the understanding to the truth of the testimony of God in the gospel.<\/p>\n

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

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

    Lessons:<\/p>\n

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

    2. <\/strong>Faith in Christ is the only way of salvation of which the gospel speaks; to reject Christ therefore must leave all the burden of sin upon the individual conscience. (R. Nicholls.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Definition of a Christian<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    The Christians righteousness derived from Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Faith alone justifies<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Faith unites to Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Faith an instrument<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Faith a venture<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Justification by faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    How faith justifies<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    The justifying power of faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    No safety in our works<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Faith is trusting God<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    Not justified by the works of the law<\/strong><\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>The means of justification here rejected.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The means acknowledged and exhibited. Faith–<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>In what.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>In what sense.<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>To what extent.<\/p>\n

    Learn:<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>That guilt does not prevent justification.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>No circumstances constitute an exception to the mode of justification.<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>Justification is within the reach of all who can believe. (S. Martin.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>Justification.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>It includes–<\/p>\n

    (1)<\/strong> freedom from guilt;<\/p>\n

    (2)<\/strong> Divine acceptance.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>It is grounded on obedience to the law–<\/p>\n

    (1)<\/strong> Personally or<\/p>\n

    (2)<\/strong> by substitute. The former justifies unfallen angels, the latter by Christ accepted justifies the sinner.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The Instrument Of justification–Faith. (J. C. Jones.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    The causes of justification<\/strong><\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>The meritorious cause–Christ.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The instrumental cause–Faith. The faith of Christ.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>The faith which Christ makes possible.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>The faith which Christ gives.<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>The faith which Christ receives.<\/p>\n

    4. <\/strong>The faith through which Christ comes.<\/p>\n

    5. <\/strong>The faith by which Christ works.<\/p>\n

    6. <\/strong>The faith which Christ will crown.<\/p>\n

    The works of the law here (Rom 3:20<\/span>) and elsewhere are undoubtedly the works required generally by the law of the old covenant–not ceremonial as contradistinguished from moral, nor moral as contradistinguished from ceremonial–but whatever of one kind and another it imposed in the form of precept–the law, in short, as a rule of right and wrong laid in its full compass on the consciences of men; but pre-eminently, of course, the law of the Ten Commandments, which lay at the heart of the whole, and was its pervading root and spirit. By deeds of conformity to this law they knew that they could not be justified, because they had not kept it. <\/strong>(Fairbairn.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    The impossibility of justification by the works of the law<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Because–<\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>Man is flesh.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>Depraved by natural corruption.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>Obnoxious by actual transgression.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>His best obedience is necessarily imperfect.<\/p>\n


    III. <\/strong>All he does or can do is a due debt owing to the law.<\/p>\n

    1.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    He owes all possible obedience to the law as a creature.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>But by performing his obligation as a creature he can never pay his debts as a transgressor.<\/p>\n


    IV. <\/strong>Christ alone is able to justify him. (J. Vaughan.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    The law abolished<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    In a sermon preached at York Minster shortly after the death of the late Dean (Augustus Duncombe) Canon Body said:
    A few days before his departure I was by his bedside, and in course of conversation alluded to his work for the Church, and the brave way he contended for the faith. He stopped me, saying, Say nothing of that. When you are where I am now you will see nothing will bear looking at of ones own. There is only one trust then, the infinite mercies of the Saviour: I said, True, it is peace, is it not, with you now: He replied, Perfect peace, thank God, perfect peace.<\/p>\n

    Justification impossible by the law<\/strong><\/p>\n


    I. <\/strong>All men have sinned-are consequently under the sentence of the law.<\/p>\n


    II. <\/strong>The office of the law is not to acquit the sinner–but to detect–expose–and condemn his sin.<\/p>\n


    III. <\/strong>The works of the law only avail for the innocent–the works of a sinner are defective in principle and extent–cannot possibly reverse or atone for the past.<\/p>\n


    IV. <\/strong>All a sinner can expect from the law is aggravated punishment–his sins multiply–become more sinful by the rejection of Christ. (J. Lyth.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    The end and design of the Jewish law<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

    1. <\/strong>Because the first and most fundamental duty of the gospel is believing in God, and believing that most perfect revelation of His will which He has made to mankind by our Saviour Jesus Christ; whereas, on the contrary, the principal part of that religion which the Judaizing Christians so earnestly contended for was an anxious observance of the burdensome rites of the ceremonial law; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion faith, and the Jewish religion the law (Rom 3:28<\/span>). Do we then, as some men object, by our preaching up the Christian religion, disannul and make void the law of God or that revelation of His will which He made to the Jews? No, we are so far from that, that by introducing Christianity we establish, confirm, and perfect the moral and immutable part of the law much more effectually than the Jewish ceremonies were able to do.<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>Because the Christian religion teaches us to expect salvation not from our own merits, but from the grace of God, that is, according to the terms of that new and gracious covenant wherein God has promised to accept of sincere repentance and amendment, instead of perfect unsinning obedience; whereas, on the contrary, the Jews depended upon their exact performance of the works of the law; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion grace, and the Jewish he styles works (Rom 11:5-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    3. <\/strong>Because the duties of the Christian religion are almost wholly moral and spiritual, respecting the inward disposition of the heart and mind; whereas on the contrary the ceremonies of the Jewish law were for the most part external; and as the Apostle to the Hebrews styles them, carnal ordinances, respecting chiefly the outward purification of the body; therefore the apostle calls the Christian religion spirit, and the Jewish he styles flesh. Thus in the Epistle to the Rom 8:3<\/span>,<\/p>\n

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

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

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

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

    Justification<\/strong><\/p>\n


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


    II. <\/strong>In what manner justification can be obtained. We have believed in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

    1. <\/strong>We are justified by believing in what Christ did. The Lord Jesus Christ, made of a woman, made under the law, obeyed <\/strong>the law perfectly in our behalf. But we are justified by believing, not only in what Christ did, but also–<\/p>\n

    2. <\/strong>In what Christ suffered.<\/p>\n

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

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

    Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

    Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Knowing that a man is not justified; <\/B>we knowing that a man is not absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous in the sight of God; <\/P>

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

    the law, <\/B>understands that law by which <\/P>

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

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

    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; <\/B>we (saith the apostle) that are Jews, knowing this, have not only assented to the truth of the gospel proposition, but accepted of this way of salvation, and received the Lord Jesus; that we so doing, not trusting to the law, or any obedience of ours to it, might be absolved from the guilt of sin, and declared righteous before God. <\/P>

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

    Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    16. not justified by the works ofthe law<\/B>as the GROUNDof justification. “The works of the law” are those whichhave the law for their objectwhich are wrought to fulfil the law[ALFORD]. <\/P>

    but by<\/B>Translate, “Butonly (in no other way save) through<\/I> faith in<\/I> JesusChrist,” as the MEANand instrument of justification. <\/P>

    Jesus Christ<\/B>In thesecond case, read with the oldest manuscripts, “Christ Jesus,”the Messiahship<\/I> coming into prominence in the case of Jewish<\/I>believers, as “Jesus” does in the first case, referring tothe general proposition. <\/P>

    justified by the faith ofChrist<\/B>that is, by Christ, the object of faith, as the groundof our justification. <\/P>

    for by the works of the lawshall no flesh be justified<\/B>He rests his argument on this as anaxiom in theology, referring to Ps143:2<\/span>, “Moses and Jesus Christ; The law and the promise;Doing and believing; Works and faith; Wages and the gift; The curseand the blessingare represented as diametrically opposed”[BENGEL]. The moral lawis, in respect to justification, more legal<\/I> than theceremonial, which was an elementary and preliminary Gospel: So”Sinai” (Ga 4:24<\/span>),which is more famed for the Decalogue than for the ceremonial law, ismade pre-eminently the type of legal bondage. Thus, justification bythe law, whether the moral or ceremonial, is excluded (Ro3:20<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

    Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

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

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

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

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

    Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Is not justified <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present passive indicative of <\/SPAN><\/span>, an old causative verb from <\/SPAN><\/span>, righteous (from <\/SPAN><\/span>, right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like <\/SPAN><\/span>, to deem worthy, and <\/SPAN><\/span>, to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with <\/SPAN><\/span>, righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see Ro 7<\/span>). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Ac 13:39<\/span>) with the same word <\/SPAN><\/span>, employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith (<\/SPAN><\/span>), righteousness (<\/SPAN><\/span>), law (<\/SPAN><\/span>), works (<\/SPAN><\/span>) occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form.<\/P>

    Save <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Except.<\/P>

    Even we <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac 15:10f.<\/span>). He quotes Ps 143:2<\/span>. Paul uses <\/SPAN><\/span> in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. Ro 1-5<\/span>. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. Ro 6-8<\/span>. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile. <\/P> <\/p>\n

    Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

    By the works of the law [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit. out of the works, etc. Comp. Rom 3:20<\/span>. Works are characteristic of a legal dispensation. Paul often puts “works” alone as representing legal righteousness. See Rom 4:2<\/span>, 6<\/span>; Rom 9:11<\/span>, 32<\/span>; Rom 11:6<\/span>; Eph 2:9<\/span>. <\/P>

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

    Flesh [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See on Rom 7:5<\/span>. For no flesh see on Rom 3:20<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

    Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    1 ) “Knowing that a man is not justified,”<\/strong> (eidotes de hoti ou dikaioutai anthropos) “perceiving indeed that a man is not justified or acquitted,” liberated or set free, Joh 8:32<\/span>; Joh 8:36<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    2) “By the Works of the Law,”<\/strong> (eks ergon nomou) “out of the works of the law,” Rom 11:6<\/span>; Rom 4:2-5<\/span>; Act 13:38-39<\/span>. Not by works of ceremonies of law, Rom 3:20<\/span>; Gal 3:11<\/span>; Gal 3:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    3) “But by the faith of Jesus Christ,”<\/strong> lean me dia pisteos Christon lesou) “Except through faith in Jesus Christ,” Rom 1:16<\/span>; Rom 10:9-10<\/span>; Gal 3:26<\/span>; Joh 1:11-12<\/span>; 1Jn 5:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    4) “Even we have believed in Jesus Christ,”<\/strong> (kai hemeis eis Christon lesoun episteusamen) “Even we believed or trusted in Jesus Christ,” Act 10:43<\/span>; 2Ti 1:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    5) “That we might be justified by the faith of Christ,”<\/strong> (hina dikaiothomen ek pisteos Christou) “in order that we might be justified out of faith of (in) Christ,” as declared by Paul, Act 13:38-39<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    6) “And not by the works of the law,”<\/strong> (kai ouk eks ergon nomou) “and not out of or by means of law;” through circumcision or law ceremonies, Php_3:2. The law-keepers are here referred to as “dogs”.<\/p>\n

    7) “For by the Works of the law,”<\/strong> (hoti eks ergon) “because by or (out of) works of law,” works of the flesh never saved anyone, anyway, anytime, Act 10:43<\/span>; Rom 3:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n

    8) “Shall no flesh be justified,”<\/strong> (ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarks) “no flesh will be justified,” before God, Rom 4:3-5<\/span>, Paul’s conclusion (Rom 3:28<\/span>) should be all men’s conclusion regarding this matter.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

    Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. (49) Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works. As to the word justification, and the manner in which faith is the cause of it, we shall afterwards see. <\/p>\n

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

    (49) Sinon en nous recognoissant despourveus et du tout desnuez de justice propre a nons.” “Unless by acknowledging that we are poor and utterly destitute of any righteousness of our own.” <\/p>\n

    Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    (16) Is not justified.<\/strong>Here the Apostle introduces, for the first time in the Epistle, the word which plays so prominent a part in the Epistle to the Romanspronounced just or righteousfree from guilt, and therefore from punishmentin the sight of God. This condition could not be produced by works done in obedience to the Law.<\/p>\n

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

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

    Even we.<\/strong>Rather, we too.<\/em> Jews as we are, in spite of all our privileges.<\/p>\n

    Have believed.<\/strong>Rather, believed.<\/em> This was the great motive of our conversion. We found that the Law could not justify us and that Christ could.<\/p>\n

    By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.<\/strong>This is a quotation for which no exact equivalent is to be found in the Old Testament. The nearest appears to be Psa. 143:2<\/span> : In thy sight shall no man living be justified. This, as written under the dispensation of the Law, naturally applied to that dispensation, so that the Apostle was justified in adding by the works of the Law. The same quotation, in the same words, is made in Rom. 3:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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

    Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

    Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    ‘Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law. For by the works of the Law shall no man living be justified.’<\/p>\n

    And here was the crunch of the matter. Peter had summed up the Gospel as, ‘we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, even as they’ (Act 15:12<\/span>), thus agreeing that both must be saved in the same way without distinction, and had further declared that ‘through His name everyone who believes on Him will receive remission of sins’ (Act 10:43<\/span>). Thus he knew that Christians were the people who ‘believed’ (Act 2:44<\/span>; Act 4:4<\/span>; Act 4:32<\/span>; Act 5:14<\/span>; Act 8:12<\/span>; etc.). So Paul is here summarising in line with Peter’s actual teaching.<\/p>\n

    ‘Yet knowing –.’ Although Jews by nature, and therefore not such gross sinners as Gentiles, they also knew in fact that they could only be justified (counted as righteous before God) by faith in Jesus Christ, as could the Gentiles. So their superior ‘state’ did not actually put them in any better position at all. For what finally mattered was being seen as ‘in the right’ by God, and this could only come as a result of their response of faith to Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

    ‘Justified.’ The word is a legal one and means to ‘be declared righteous, to be accounted as righteous’. It speaks of a legal decision made on the basis of the facts and the law, and is the opposite of ‘to be condemned’ (Rom 8:1<\/span>; Rom 8:33<\/span>). This is evidenced by its o-o ending, dikao-o, which means ‘to account as righteous’ and not ‘to make righteous’. It does not speak of a man’s inward condition, but of the status that he has in the eyes of the judge.<\/p>\n

    ‘A man is not justified by works of the Law — for by the works of the Law can no man living be justified.’ The Law, Paul says, was powerless to justify, because no one could ever succeed in obeying it fully. That was definitely something that no one could achieve, even if they were not ‘sinners by nature’. And Paul knew from personal experience how true this was (see Rom 7:7-11<\/span>). He had struggled more than all to try to keep it and had failed, and so had his fellow Pharisees. The more they had tried, the more they had failed. And this also applied to all people, whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It was true of both ritual and moral aspects of the Law (although they would not have differentiated, for they saw all as the Law). They had failed on all counts.<\/p>\n

    The Law laid down a standard. It said this is how you must live, and it went into detail laying down individual laws. To be justified by the Law therefore it was necessary to live exactly in accordance with its requirements, without failing at any point. This is true of all law. It is not sufficient to keep most of it. The law is total in its demands (Gal 3:10<\/span>; compare Jas 2:10<\/span>). It demands fulfilment of every part. To break one law is to be a lawbreaker, especially when that law has been laid down by God. And therefore there is no man who has not sinned before God. ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Rom 3:23<\/span>). ‘There is none righteous, no, not one’ (Rom 3:10-18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    ‘But only through faith in Christ.’ (Or ‘except through faith in Christ’). This could mean either that in contrast with the Law faith in Christ justifies, or that a man can be justified by the law through faith in Christ. They really come down to the same thing. Faith in Christ ‘justifies’, as we are told elsewhere, because by it His righteousness is put to our account. ‘For He has made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made (or ‘might become’) the righteousness of God in Him’ (2Co 5:21<\/span>). It is thus the result of ‘a righteousness of God by faith’ given to faith, that is, to those who believe (Rom 1:17<\/span>; Rom 3:21-22<\/span>; Rom 3:25-26<\/span>). Clothed thus in the righteousness of Christ Who kept the whole Law we can then be justified by the Law, because we will be judged not by our failure, but by His success. We will be ‘clothed’ with Christ, and God will look on us as we are ‘in Him’. If we are in Christ, then the Judge will not look at us, He will look at His righteousness as it covers us and will say ‘not guilty’. So ‘to him who does not work but believes on Him Who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness’ (Rom 4:5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    ‘We have believed on Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law’. And because that is what we have done when we become Christians and believe on Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer, we are thereby ‘counted as righteous’, not because of what we have done as we tried to obey the Law (the works of the law), but because we have believed in Jesus Christ as the One Who bore our sin in our place. Here ‘justification’, being looked on as though we had never sinned, is specifically said to be ‘not by the works of the Law’, which again supports the translation ‘only through’. We are being told that the one who believes on Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Him basically renounces his wish to be judged by the Law, which is very wise as the Law can justify no one except the totally righteous, and ‘there is none righteous, not, not one’ (Rom 3:10<\/span>). A believer rather puts all his trust in what Jesus Christ has suffered for him, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring us to God (1Pe 3:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    Notice the switch here from ‘Jesus Christ’ to ‘Christ Jesus’ to ‘Christ’. The names are synonymous, but the increasing emphasis is on ‘Christ’, the anointed One, the One sent from God, the Saviour of the world.<\/p>\n

    So the main grounds for Paul’s stand is that ‘a man is not put in the right with God by observing the Law but by putting his faith in Jesus Christ’. This is the crux of his argument, and of this letter. The moral Law can only condemn, he tells us. It cannot aid salvation. However much we try to keep it we will always fail. There will always be some point at which we will become unstuck. Like the rich young ruler we may be able to tick them off and say, ‘all these things have I observed from my youth up’. And then God steps in and says, ‘yes, but what about this?’ With the rich young ruler it was his love of riches. With Paul it had been covetousness. But all of us have some lack. None of us have loved God with our heart, soul, mind and strength. None of us have truly loved our neighbour as ourselves in all aspects of our lives. And the Judge puts His finger on where we have failed, and cries ‘Guilty’. For he who fails on one point is guilty of all. He is a lawbreaker (Jas 2:10<\/span>). And that is why none of the rituals are necessary any longer, because the sacrificial death of Christ has replaced them. They cannot even contribute to our salvation, because Christ has done all that is necessary in dying for us. That is why it is faith in Christ that must be central.<\/p>\n

    It should be noted that this emphasis that a man is justified (counted as righteous) by faith in Christ was central to the teaching of Jesus Himself, for His constant message was that men must respond to Him and believe on Him, and that thereby they would be saved and receive eternal life (Joh 1:12<\/span>; Joh 3:15-21<\/span>; Joh 5:24<\/span> compare Mat 18:6<\/span>; Mar 5:34<\/span>; Mar 10:52<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    is usually construed so that is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with in Gal 2:15<\/span> , and this is again taken up by the subsequent (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus<\/em> is supplied after , a new sentence is commenced by , and <\/p>\n

    Gal 2:16<\/span> is usually construed so that is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with in Gal 2:15<\/span> , and this is again taken up by the subsequent (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus<\/em> is supplied after , a new sentence is commenced by , and . . . is taken as apodosis (Beza and others; also Rckert, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, de conform. N.T. Lachm<\/em> . p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Matthias, Mller). Both forms of construction would give as the motive<\/em> for the . But in this way the statement, how Paul and Peter (for these<\/em> are the subject; see on Gal 2:15<\/span> ) attained to faith, would not tally with history, for the conversion of these two apostles did not at all take place by means of logical process in the argumentative way of . Both of them were in fact miraculously<\/em> and suddenly<\/em> laid hold of by Christ; and thereby, on their becoming believers, the light of the statement of purpose in the sequel dawned upon them. We must therefore consider as correct the punctuation of Lachmann, [94] who is followed by Wieseler: a comma only before , and a period after , “ We are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however<\/em> ” ( still belonging to the , which has to be supplied), that is, since we nevertheless know, that a man is not justified<\/em> , etc.; so that what thou, Peter, doest (Gal 2:15<\/span> ), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have notwithstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence.<\/p>\n

    ] The emphatically prefixed is negatived: a man is not justified<\/em> . As to the idea of , see on Rom 1:17<\/span> . Here also it appears clearly as an actus forensis<\/em> , and as incompatible with the perversion of the idea by the Catholics and the followers of Osiander. See especially Wieseler in loc. From works of the law<\/em> , which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal; by means of faith<\/em> , which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom 5:5<\/span> ; Rom 5:21<\/span> f.), these are the contrasted points<\/em> , while the idea<\/em> of is the same<\/em> . Comp. on Rom 3:25<\/span> f.<\/p>\n

    ] is not subjective<\/em> (works, which the law by its precepts calls forth), but objective:<\/em> works, which relate to the law<\/em> , that is, works by which the precepts of the law are fulfilled<\/em> , which have as their opposite the , Wis 2:12 . See on Rom 2:15<\/span> . Our passage testifies also in favour of this view by the contrast of , inasmuch as the one relation ( ) to the one object ( ) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation ( ) to the other object ( ). Schott, following the older expositors (including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus), quite erroneously limits to the ceremonial law<\/em> , a limitation which never occurs in the N.T. [95] (see on Rom 3:20<\/span> , and Schmid, bibl. Theol<\/em> . II. p. 336), and, especially where justification is the matter in question, would be quite unsuitable; for the impossibility of justification by the law has reference to the whole<\/em> law, viewed in its requirements jointly and severally<\/em> , which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man can fulfil. Comp. Gal 3:10<\/span> ; Weiss, bibl. Theol<\/em> . p. 259.<\/p>\n

    ] not a compromise between justification by works and justification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness (Holsten, in spite of the apodosis<\/em> ), but a transition to another mode of conception: A man is not justified by the works of the law; he is not justified, except by<\/em> etc. Comp. Hymn. Cer<\/em> . 77 f., , . Comp. on Mat 12:4<\/span> ; Rom 14:14<\/span> . See also on Gal 1:7<\/span> . Consequently we have here neither justification by the works<\/em> , which are done by means of faith (the Catholic view), nor Christ’s<\/em> fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended<\/em> by faith. [96] The former is not Pauline, [97] and the latter has only its indirect truth (for the N.T. nowhere teaches the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in so far as the atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily presupposes His active, sinless obedience (2Co 5:21<\/span> ), of which, however, nothing is here said. But here in we have the “ sola<\/em> fide” of Luther and his Church. Comp. on Rom 3:28<\/span> . It is only the man justified solely by faith, who thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the requirements of the law; see on Rom 8:4<\/span> . This is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption.<\/p>\n

    ] object: on Jesus Christ<\/em> . Comp. Mar 11:22<\/span> ; see on Rom 3:22<\/span> , and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl<\/em> . p. 112.<\/p>\n

    and denote the same idea (of causality) under two forms (that of origin and that of mediate agency), as Paul in general is fond of varying his prepositions (see on Rom 3:30<\/span> ; 2Co 3:11<\/span> ; Eph 1:7<\/span> ). In (comp. Gal 3:26<\/span> ) faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification the presence of which is the necessary causa medians<\/em> of the latter. Certainly the man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately<\/em> into the state of justification; but the preposition<\/em> has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing to do with this relation, any more than postpones the being righteous<\/em> , as the result of action, until the very end of life<\/em> , whereas it may be conceived at any moment of life, as a result for the time being<\/em> .<\/p>\n

    ] begins a new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a point on which both were convinced,<\/p>\n

    , . . ., he now confirms by reminding him of the righteousness which they also<\/em> had aimed at in having become believers ( ); so that , even we<\/em> both, supplies the special application of the foregoing general . The order lays a greater stress on the Messianic character<\/em> of the historical person who is the object of faith, than is the case in the usual order (comp. Gal 2:4<\/span> ; Gal 3:26<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

    ] Comp. Rom 3:20<\/span> . These words, , take up again what had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory , since indeed<\/em> . conveys the idea of “ all men<\/em> ” (comp. above, ), with the accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility by means of works in the sight of the justifying God. Comp. on Act 2:17<\/span> . Looking at the difference in the terms used and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to be assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof<\/em> (from Psa 143:2<\/span> ), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation<\/em> is here also not to be separated from the verb; for it is not which is negatived, but in reference to . Fritzsche ( Diss<\/em> . II. in<\/em> 2 Cor<\/em> . p. 26) aptly says: “non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis.” Lastly, the future<\/em> denotes that which never will occur<\/em> . The reference to the judgment<\/em> (Rom 5:19<\/span> ), which is discovered here by Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place. Comp. Gal 2:21<\/span> . It is otherwise, Gal 5:5<\/span> ; 2Ti 4:8<\/span> .<\/p>\n

    [94] In the small<\/em> edition; in the larger<\/em> one the usual punctuation is followed.<\/p>\n

    [95] Although, according to the context, at one time the ethical, and at another the ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. Comp. on Rom 3:20<\/span> .<\/p>\n

    [96] So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal<\/em> . p. 18 f.<\/p>\n

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

    Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    (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. (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. (18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. (19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    I beg the Reader to be very attentive to the statement, which God the Holy Ghost hath here made by his servant the Apostle, concerning the method of justification, and which, indeed, more or less, is the subject of this whole Epistle. And I beg the Reader’s attention to it the more, because errors are continually discovered in the minds, even of the Lord’s people, on this great point of the Gospel. Nothing this side eternity, can be as interesting, as for every child of God to know the sure ground of his acceptance with God in CHRIST. The smallest departure from truth, in this particular, may induce great confusion. And until that my soul is firmly established in an unshaken confidence of God’s full justification in Christ, I shall not be prepared either for an appearance before God, in time, or in eternity.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Now the Apostle’s account is short, and plain, and simple: Knowing, (saith he,) that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. And the reason is evident. The law of God demands unsinning obedience. The least departure is a breach of the whole, and, consequently, the offender is subject to the full penalty of disobedience. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. And as all mankind have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; so, it must undeniably follow, that by the deeds of the law, can no flesh be justified in God’s sight. This is a short, but it is a clear statement of what Paul saith, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    From the law, the Apostle turns to the Gospel. We are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. Here Paul considers Christ as the sole justifying cause before God, of his Church and people. And on this truly scriptural ground. Christ as their Head, and Surety, and Representative, obeyed the whole precepts of the law, and suffered the whole penalty of the breaches of it by his death. Hence, as the Apostle sums it up in the next chapter, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us. Gal 3:13<\/span> . Here, therefore, there is as full a confirmation of redemption by Christ, as under the foregoing observation, there was a confirmation of being condemned by the law. And Christ’s obedience and death, being set forth by God himself for a propitiation, nothing can be more plain and satisfactory, than that we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of all our sins, according to the riches of his grace. Eph 1:7<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    And the way in which this obedience and blood-shedding of Christ becomes the cause of the justification of his people before God is, by virtue of their union with him, and their interest in him. Christ and his people, in the eye of God’s righteous law, are one. Hence, what Christ did, is as if they had done it. What Christ, suffered, is as if they had suffered. For, as in all, Christ acted as; their Surety, and being accepted of God, yea, appointed by God in this high character, when he had performed all his Suretyship-offices, and God declared himself well pleased with him, both law and justice must discharge the original debtor, having come upon the Surety, and the debt having been fully paid. Both cannot pay, for, in that case, it would be doubly paid, which would he unjust. And, therefore, the Apostle’s conclusion is correct. Now, therefore, there can be no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom 8:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    And, lastly, to add no more. The soul’s enjoyment of this blessed state of justification before God, solely in the Person, and by the redemption of Christ, becomes the right of every regenerated child of God, in all its bearings, and in all its branches, by faith. So Paul declares: We are justified (saith he) by the faith of Christ. Hence, though the whole work and glory is Christ’s, yet the Church enjoys it by faith. We realize the blessed properties of the whole, by our faith in Him, and our dependence upon Him. So, that in the proportion that the Lord gives his people grace to act faith upon Christ, and his complete righteousness, which justifies freely, fully, satisfactorily; such more or less, will be our joy and peace in believing, abounding in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost. Rom 15:13<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    It forms a blessed view to faith, to behold this complete remedy of God’s own providing, for the recovery of the Church from sin, in this time-state of her being. And it is very blessed also, when by faith, we live in the enjoyment of it. Here we see the truth and sweetness of that blessed scripture, that Christ is set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood. Rom 3:25<\/span> . And we see no less, under the same divine teaching, that as God hath set Christ, forth a propitiation, so the Church is accepted in him. Christ’s righteousness, in the sight of God, is their righteousness, as being one with him. They are, indeed, One. And, hence, scripture declares, that Christ’s righteousness is unto all, and upon all that believe. Rom 3:22<\/span> . So that they are accounted holy in Christ’s holiness, as if they had fulfilled all holiness in their own persons. Son 4:7<\/span> ; Eze 16:14<\/span> . Reader! do not dismiss the subject until through the Lord’s teaching, you have found the blessedness of it in your own heart. And suffer me to add, that you never will enter into the complete and absolute enjoyment of it, before that the Lord hath made you bare, and stripped you of all, and every supposed quality in yourself, and in your own attainments. A man must see – himself lost, before that he will ask for salvation. And Christ will never be precious, until sin is seen to be exceeding sinful. And no one will rightly esteem Christ’s righteousness, while fancying he hath somewhat of his own to recommend him before God.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    I cannot refrain from calling the Reader’s attention one moment longer, to what the Apostle here saith, of being dead to the law, that he might live unto God. If these words were not found in the Bible, and written by a man, under the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, we should stand amazed at the Apostle’s account of himself. Dead to the law! What was Paul lawless? Yes! indeed, if putting Christ in the place of the law be so. For, in fact, not only Paul, but every regenerated child of God is so, in respect to seeking principles of life, or justification from the law. Christ is the sole life of everyone who is regenerated. That soul cannot be living upon Christ, who makes any one law-work a part of justification. No man can be looking to Christ and the law together for life: if you are alive in Christ, like Paul, you are dead to the law. But so far is this from giving occasion to licentiousness, that the Holy Ghost declares it to be the only source of subduing sin. If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Rom 8:13<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    Some there are, however, from being untaught by the Spirit, and, consequently, unable to explain these things according to their creed, have ventured to interpret the Apostle’s expression, as if, when Paul said he was dead to the law, he meant the Ceremonial law. But, unhappily for their cause, the Scriptures never make distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, when speaking on the subject. This distinction exists but in men’s brains. And, wonderful to tell, after all the volumes which men, untaught of God, have written about the moral law, there is not such a word as moral or ceremonial in all the Bible. So, that while men of this complexion are wearying themselves for very vanity, their labors, are all foreign to Scripture, and serve only to prove, what (Must everlastingly be expected from the writings of unawakened men,) that they know not God. 1Co 1:21<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

    As, therefore, the Scriptures of God, when speaking of the law, make no distinction, but plainly mean the whole law; so, when Paul tells the Church he is dead to the law, he also can be supposed to mean no other, than the whole of it. And, if the Apostle be allowed, (as every honest man should,) to explain his own meaning, his words in this place are in exact correspondence to all his other writings on the subject. Let the Reader consult what Paul hath said, 1Co 9:21<\/span> . and Phi 3:6-9<\/span> . and then say, whether such blessed living upon Christ can be licentiousness. Let men call it so if they dare. Be it my happiness to have the same law-death and Spirit-life in Jesus. Time , or rather eternity will show with whom the truth is. Whether the bolstered pride of a poor, sinful man’s fancied righteousness, or t he righteousness which is of God by faith?<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

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

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

    Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Knowing. Greek. oida. App-132. <\/p>\n

    justified. Greek. dikaioo App-191. <\/p>\n

    by. Greek. ek. App-104. <\/p>\n

    the. Omit. <\/p>\n

    but by = except (Greek. ean me) <\/p>\n

    by (Greek. dia App-104).<\/p>\n

    faith. Greek. pistis. App-150. <\/p>\n

    Jesus Christ. App-98. <\/p>\n

    even we = we also. <\/p>\n

    have. Omit. <\/p>\n

    believed. Greek. pisteuo App-150. <\/p>\n

    Christ. App-98. <\/p>\n

    no flesh. Literally not (Greek. ou) all flesh. A Hebraism. <\/p>\n

    Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16. 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.<\/p>\n

    This is the primary truth to be proclaimed by the Christian ministry. It is the foundation-stone of all gospel preaching; and yet, somehow or other, such is the hardness of the human heart, that it is the most difficult thing to induce our hearers to build on this foundation. Many of them are always trying to lean upon their own works, and so struggling to get back under the old legal dispensation, instead of rejoicing in the liberty of the dispensation of grace. One objection to the doctrine of grace rather than the doctrine of law is this, that some think it will lead to sin. The apostle puts it thus: <\/p>\n

    Gal 2:17. 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.<\/p>\n

    For the tendency of the gospel of grace is to excite gratitude in those who receive it. If I am freely pardoned, then I must love him who has thus generously forgiven me. Gratitude is the root of true virtue, and the main-spring of all holiness. If there be base-minded men who can suck poison out of this honeycomb, is Christ to be blamed for their evil-doing? God forbid! But if, on the other hand, you and I go back to trusting in works, then we are indeed guilty in the sight of God.<\/p>\n

    Gal 2:18. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.<\/p>\n

    If I once said I would not trust in my good works, and now go back to trust in them, I have already, whatever may be my outward conduct, perpetrated a great sin.<\/p>\n

    Gal 2:19-20. 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.<\/p>\n

    I do not know a better epitome of Christian experience than this. This is the daily walk of a true child of God, if he liveth after any other sort, then he liveth not a Christians life at all. Christ living in us, ourselves living upon Christ, and our union to Christ being visibly maintained by an act of simple faith in him, this is the true Christians life.<\/p>\n

    Gal 2:21. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.<\/p>\n

    If a man can be saved by his own works, and willings, and doings, then Christs death was an unnecessary piece of torture; and, instead of being the most glorious manifestation of divine love, it was a shameful waste, putting upon Christ a terrible burden of suffering which was totally unnecessary. <\/p>\n

    This exposition consisted of readings from Gal 2:16-21; Gal 2:3.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

    [14] Engl. Vers. has We have believed in Jesus Christ. But ACD()Gg Vulg. have the order . Bf Memph. and later Syr. support the order , .-ED<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16<\/p>\n

    Gal 2:16<\/p>\n

    yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ,-Those who came into Christ from the Jews knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Jewish law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

    even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ,-Even Paul and Peter sought justification through Christ instead of depending on the works of the law to justify them. In doing this they ignored or turned from that which made them Jews, and identified themselves in so doing with sinners needing a Savior. [We cannot doubt that Peter, before Andrew led him to Jesus, and Paul, before he went to Damascus, had sought the favor of God by obedience to the law; and that the failure of their search had taught them that thus it cannot be obtained. Indeed without this preparation the words of Jesus to Peter (Mat 16:19), and afterwards to Paul (Act 26:19), would have been ineffective. Until we find that our good works cannot save us, we cannot trust for salvation to the word of Christ. Consequently these words are true of all who venture to repose faith in Christ, and they were a powerful appeal to Peters remembrance of his own life. For he was now practically setting up a condition, and in this sense a means, which, when he first came to Christ, he had forsaken because he had found from it salvation could not be obtained. In Pauls address to Peter he appeals to him to take their own case. Although they were born Jews and not the offspring of idolaters and sharers of the awful immorality of heathenism, yet, inasmuch as they found by experience that no justification comes from works done in obedience to the law, but only through faith in Christ, even we born Jews and as compared with other moral men put faith in Christ in order that in him we might have a justification not to be derived from works of law.]<\/p>\n

    and not by the works of the law:-The works here referred to are the works of Moses which the Jews trusted in for salvation. In coming to Christ they turned from all that was distinctively Jewish.<\/p>\n

    because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.-It is true that no man could be justified by the law because no man left to himself could obey the law without fault, and only perfect obedience could bring justification through law, but Paul is not dealing in abstractions here. He is contrasting the salvation through works of the Jewish law, which the Jews sought and the salvation through Christ. The same thing is taught in the following: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (Rom 8:3). The law of Moses had failed to keep the Jews from sin, and it was taken out of the way and faith in Christ Jesus is presented as leading to salvation.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    that: Gal 2:19, Gal 3:10-12, Gal 5:4, Job 9:2, Job 9:3, Job 9:29, Job 25:4, Psa 130:3, Psa 130:4, Luk 10:25-29, Act 13:38, Act 13:39, Rom 3:19, Rom 3:20, Rom 3:27, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:2, Rom 4:13-15, Phi 3:9 <\/p>\n

    but: Gal 3:13, Gal 3:14, Gal 3:22-24, Gal 4:5, Rom 1:17, Rom 3:21-26, Rom 3:28, Rom 3:30, Rom 4:5, Rom 4:6, Rom 4:24, Rom 4:25, Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2, Rom 5:8, Rom 5:9, Rom 8:3, Rom 8:30-34, 1Co 6:11, 2Co 5:19-21, Phi 3:9, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19 <\/p>\n

    we have: Gal 2:20, Joh 6:68, Joh 6:69, Joh 20:31, Act 4:12, 1Pe 1:2, 1Pe 1:8, 1Pe 1:9, 1Pe 1:18-21, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18, 2Pe 1:1, 1Jo 1:7, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2, Rev 7:9, Rev 7:14 <\/p>\n

    for: Gal 3:11, Psa 143:2 <\/p>\n

    Reciprocal: Hab 2:4 – but Luk 18:14 – justified Joh 3:15 – whosoever Act 15:11 – that Act 20:21 – faith Act 24:24 – the faith Rom 2:9 – of the Jew Rom 2:12 – in the law Rom 2:13 – justified Rom 3:22 – unto all Rom 10:10 – unto righteousness Gal 2:21 – righteousness Gal 3:24 – justified Eph 2:3 – we Phi 3:7 – General 1Ti 2:7 – in faith Tit 3:5 – by works Tit 3:7 – being<\/p>\n

    Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16. -but knowing as we do that a man is not justified by the works of the law. The is not found in the Received Text, nor in A, D3, K, some versions and Greek fathers; but it occurs in B, C, D1, F, L, . Some connect the verse with the preceding, regarding its as taken up by the following , the nominative to : We by nature Jews, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, even we believed into Christ. This is the view of Winer, Matthies, B.-Crusius, De Wette, and Alford-the whole forming one sentence. But the previous verse may be taken as a complete statement: We are Jews by nature; but, knowing as we do that a man is not justified by works of law, even we believed. Such is the view of Beza, Borger, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Ewald, Hofmann, Meyer, and Turner. The construction is supported by the , which was probably omitted in favour of the other view. Nor can well mean nevertheless, as Alford renders it, nor and, as Bagge gives it; nor can obgleich, although, be supplied to the previous verse, as is done by De Wette, or quamquam, as by Trana. None of these supplementary ekes are required. <\/p>\n

    The then is but, with its usual adversative meaning, pointing to a different course from that to which the previous verse might be supposed to lead, and indicating a transition from a trust in Judaism, so natural to a born Jew, to faith in Christ. The participle has a causal sense (Schmalfeld, 207, 3); but the meaning is not that it was a logical conclusion from the premiss, a man is not justified by the works of the law, which led to the conversion of Peter and Paul. The faith of Peter had showed itself in attachment to the person and life of the Master, and must have developed within him the conviction, that He to whom he had ascribed the words of eternal life could alone bestow the blessing. Paul, on the other hand, had been arrested in a moment by the sudden challenge of Jesus (Php 3:12); and his first thought was, the identity of Him that spoke out of that glory with Him who had been put to death on the cross. This earliest belief, begotten in an instant, must have created the persuasion, that in Jesus and not in works of law a man is justified. But the apostle now speaks in the light of present knowledge, puts into a definite shape the result of those mingled impressions which led to their discipleship, or at least sustained it. <\/p>\n

    The phrase , the stress on , may be rendered by works of law, as virtually by Peile, Brown, and Gwynne; for if a man cannot be justified by the Mosaic law, he cannot be justified by any other. But, <\/p>\n

    I. Such a generalization, or the idea of obligation arising out of law, though it is the blessed truth, could scarcely be attributed to so early a period in the religious history of the apostle and that of the Jewish converts. <\/p>\n

    II. The law referred to is certainly the law in dispute, the Jewish law, the law which Peter was so inconsistent as to allow himself to observe through pressure of Jewish influence-his hypocrisy in the matter leading to the whole controversy. That a man cannot be justified by any law whatever on the score of duty done, is indeed the ultimate inference, but it was not the immediate point of discussion. That a man cannot be justified by the works of the Mosaic law, was the doctrine demanding immediate defence, the doctrine so far invalidated by Peter’s dissimulation; nay, it was this conviction which led so many Jews in possession of that law to put their trust in Christ. <\/p>\n

    III. , in the sense of the Mosaic law, does not require the article, as some suppose; for it was to the Jewish mind the only divine law, the only law revealed and sanctioned for them. In the Gospels it has the article indeed, except in Luk 2:23-24, in which places there is the qualifying genitive . But it wants the article in Rom 2:12; Rom 2:23; Rom 4:13-15; Rom 5:13; Rom 5:20; Rom 7:1; Rom 10:4; 1Co 9:20; Gal 3:10-11; Gal 3:18; and as Winer remarks, it always occurs as a genitive when the principal noun has no article, xix. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 48. <\/p>\n

    The preposition , out of, denoting source, passes often into a causal meaning, resulting from, and is not in such use distinguishable, as Fritzsche remarks, from , as frequently in Herodotus, or even from or : Epist. ad Rom. i. pp. 332-3; Jelf, 621, 3. Source or origination may be the relation here indicated: works are not the source out of which justification springs; or, with a slight change of relation, works are not the cause of justification. The genitive is taken as that of subject by Augustine,-by the Catholic interpreters, Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Salmero,-by Windischmann and Maier, as also by Usteri, Neander, Olshausen, Lepsius, Hofmann, and Gwynne who calls it a genitive of quality with an adjectival force. Under that view the meaning is, works capable of satisfying the requirements of God’s law, i.e. meritorious works. But are works which fulfil the law, in contrast, as Meyer remarks, to , Wis 2:12, deeds which transgress the law. In this way it is regarded as the genitive of object by Beza, Rckert, De Wette, Wieseler. And the or law we regard as the whole Mosaic law, and not merely its ceremonial part, as is the opinion of Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Michaelis, Semler, Schott. And the are not works external in character and proceeding from no inner principle of love or loyalty, , which Catholic commentators place in contrast to spes, charitas, timor; the plural does not of itself convey this insinuation (Usteri). See under Eph 2:10. See Calvin, in loc.; Philippi on Rom 3:20, p. 89, etc., 3d ed.-his opinion being changed from that expressed in his first edition. Neither meritum de congruo nor meritum de condigno has any place in a sinner’s justification. The so-called ceremonial part of the law may indeed have been specially in the apostle’s mind, as suggested by Peter’s withdrawal from eating with the Gentile converts, but the modern distinction of moral and ceremonial is nowhere formally made or recognised in Scripture; the law is regarded as one code. See under Gal 3:10-13. <\/p>\n

    -except by faith in Jesus Christ,-the stress lying on . This is the order of the proper names in C, D, F, K, L, and , the majority of cursives, versions, and the Greek fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret; also, Jerome and Ambrose. The inverse order, adopted by Tischendorf in his 7th ed., has in its favour only A, B, Victorinus, and Augustine. The phrase has the usual meaning of , and refers only to the -a man is not justified by the works of the law, or a man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ. See under Gal 1:7; Gal 1:19, pp. 33, 51; Mat 12:4; Luk 4:26-27; Rom 14:14, and the remarks of Fritzsche on that place, vol. 3.195. The verb is the ethical present-the expression of an enduring truth. The relation indicated by in the former clause is indicated in this clause by ,-the reference being to source or cause in the former, in the present to means or instrument; or, as Meyer says, it is causality in two forms-des Ausgehens und des Vermitteltseins. It is the apostle’s manner to exhibit relations in various connected phases by a change of prepositions. Rom 3:30; 1Co 8:6, etc. The is changed again into in the next clause, showing that they indicate the same relation with a slight difference of view,- being taken as cause or as instrument in connection with-that is, originating or bringing about-the same result. Besides and , with the dative occurs Php 3:9, and the simple genitive is used Rom 4:11. Bengel’s strange distinction is, that refers to Gentiles, and to Jews. Like the preceding , the genitive I. X. is that of object. Rationalists, according to Wieseler, make it the genitive of subject. Thus Schultess, der Glaube Christi, Glauben wie Christus an Gott den Vater hatte und bethtigte. But others, not rationalists certainly, hold a similar view. Thus Gwynne, who takes the genitive subjectively or possessively, Faith not only of Christ as author or giver, but of Christ as the author or possessor-Christ, in a word, believing within them. See also Stier, Ep 1:447. Whatever theological truth may be in the statements, they do not lie naturally or apparently in the words before us. The faith which justifies is characterized by its object, for by its object it is distinguished from all other kinds of belief; the difference being, not how one believes, but what one believes. <\/p>\n

    These clauses seem sometimes to have been understood in the following fallacious way, chiefly by Catholic expositors: A man is not justified by works or by the law, except through faith in Christ; that is, on condition of faith in Christ, works of law will justify a man, or works acquire justifying power through faith in Christ. Non justificatur homo ex operibus legis nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, i.e. opera legis non justificant quatenus sint legis, sed quatenus ex fide fiunt, ita ut opera vim justificandi a fide accipiant (a-Lapide, Holsten). But this opinion is plainly against the grammatical meaning and the entire logical bearing of the apostle’s argument. See Paraeus in reply. <\/p>\n

    The notion of Jatho is peculiar, as he takes to mean, in some way or other, the works done in fulfilment of the law by Christ-the obedientia activa, die Gesetzeserfllung Christi, on which faith lays hold. A man is not justified by Christ’s fulfilment of the law, except through faith in Him who had so acted. The idea is far-fetched, and wholly foreign to the natural meaning of the terms, for it comes not within the scope of the apostle’s statement. <\/p>\n

    No man can fulfil the law, and therefore no man can be justified by it; for as he breaks it, so he is exposed to the threatened penalty. Law detects and convicts transgressors; it has warrant to condemn, but it is powerless to acquit. It pronounces every man a violator of its precepts, and leaves him under the curse of death. But the law is holy; it does not create his guilt, save in the sense of showing many acts to be sinful which without its light and power might be regarded as indifferent, and of stirring up desire after forbidden things: it only declares his guilt; and we abandon it, as Chrysostom says, not as evil, but as weak. Faith is a principle wholly different from works. It does not merit justification; but as it has its root in Him who died for us, it brings us into union with Him, and into a participation of all the blessings which His obedience unto death has secured for us. It is not the ground (propter), but only the instrument ( , and never or propter fidem, Lightfoot) by which Christ’s merit is laid hold of-the hand, as Hooker says, that putteth on Christ to justification. See under chap. iii. <\/p>\n

    -we also believed into Christ Jesus. There is some variation of reading as to the proper names. B, some versions, Theodoret, and Augustine place first, so that it is precarious to lay stress on the change. The aorist is not we have believed, but indefinite, or at a previous point of time we believed, The may be taken in its ascensive force-even we, born Jews as we were. Its ordinary meaning, however, is just as emphatic-we also, as well as the Gentiles-we too, born under the law, renounced all trust in the works of the law, and putting ourselves quite on a level with Gentile sinners who never had the law,-we as well as they believed into Christ Jesus. In there is the personal application of the precious doctrine-a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ Jesus. In order to be so justified, we too believed on Christ, is the exhaustive statement; and Paul reminds Peter how they had both brought this truth home to themselves, and acted in harmony with it. The relation indicated by -not so frequent a usage in Paul as in John-is more than mere direction, and means into (Winer, 30), in the same way as the other expression, , in Gal 3:27. The faith enters into Christ through union with Him. But faith is not to be identified with this union or incorporation (Gwynne), for it is rather the means of creating and sustaining it-the Spirit being the agent, the Spirit in the Head giving organic union to all the members. <\/p>\n

    The verb is used with various prepositions. Thus, it sometimes governs the dative, expressing an act of simple credence, a usage common in the Septuagint. See Mat 21:25; Mat 21:28-32; Mar 11:31; Luk 20:5, in reference to the Baptist; Joh 5:38; Joh 5:46; Act 18:8; Gal 3:6. Sometimes, though rarely, it is followed by the dative with , expressing confidence in or in union with: Mar 1:15, Sept. Jer 12:6, Psa 78:22, ;-sometimes, but very seldom, by the dative with , implicit reliance on: Luk 24:25, spoken of divine oracles, 1Ti 1:16, Mat 27:42;-sometimes with the simple accusative of the thing believed: Joh 11:26;-occasionally with : 1Jn 5:10;-sometimes with accusative of person and -faith going out toward and entering into,-often, as might be expected, in John, and also in Peter; and sometimes with an accusative and -faith going out with a view of being reposed upon-fidem alicui adjungere,-only once in Sept. Wis 12:2. The accusative with or is more specially characteristic of believing in the New Testament-of that faith which implies union with its object, or consciously places calm confidence on it. Rom 4:5. The ecclesiastical uses of the verb and noun, the more correct and the laxer, will be found in Suicer’s Thes. sub voce. See also Reuss, Theol. Chret. vol. ii. p. 129. <\/p>\n

    -in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. This reading is well supported, and is generally accepted. . is omitted in F, Theodor., Tert.,-the omission made apparently on account of the previous repetition of the name. The reveals the final purpose or object of their believing-the momentous end sought to be realized. The use of shows that it does not essentially differ from in the previous part of the verse, and it was preferred probably as being directly opposed to the repeated . Justification springs out of faith in Christ, not as its ultimate source, but as its instrumental cause. Or may not have been suggested by the previous – . . . . .-out of this faith so uniting us with Him into whom it enters as its object, comes justification? The apostle adds in contrast, -and not by the works of the law. See on the first and last clauses. <\/p>\n

    If the reading of the previous clauses as here given be adopted as correct, there are three ways in which the Saviour is mentioned-Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Christ. It is hard to say what suggested such variations to the apostle’s mind in this verse or elsewhere. The nouns are all anarthrous, and, as may be expected, there are often various readings. In this epistle the names Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus occur about equally; but with it is always . ., as with in this verse. If the variations of name are designed to be significant, then they may be explained thus: In the first clause where the name occurs, it is Jesus Christ-the faith of Jesus Christ-faith which has for its object the living and loving man brought so close to us by His humanity indicated by His birth-name Jesus, and that Jesus the Messiah or Christ, the double name being connected with a proposition of universal application. Then in the next clause it is Christ Jesus-we also believed into Christ Jesus-into Him, the promised and anointed Deliverer, His mission and work giving our faith its warrant, and our union with Him its saving reality, this Messiah being He who was called Jesus,-a proposition made by the especially Jewish in its aspect, and therefore naturally giving the name Christ or Messiah the prominence in thought and order. Next it is simply Christ-that we might be justified by the faith of Christ. The solitary Jewish name in its recurrence is all-inclusive to the -we-you, Peter, and I: we Jews believed on our Messiah, on whose mother and for Him rested the unction of the Holy One, and on whom at His baptism the Spirit visibly descended, in fulfilment of the oracles and promises of the Old Testament. In the Gospels these names are used with distinctive propriety; and it may be added, that , the familiar name of the Man, occurs in the Gospels 620 times,-61 of these, however, being various readings; that , the official designation, occurs 47 times, four of these being various readings; and five times,-the form not occurring once. But in the Epistles such precision is not preserved: the ascended Lord had become more than mere Jesus, and occurs only 62 times, 10 of these being various readings; the promised Deliverer now stood out to view, and occurs 108 times, 22 being various readings; and the simple 148 times, 17 being various readings. The compound name is also naturally employed: being used 156 times (nine various readings); and , which is never used in the Gospels and only two or three times in the Acts, occurs in the Epistles 64 times (two various readings). These changes are natural, and are easily accounted for. lost its official distinctiveness and passed into a proper name, though there are places where the names could not be interchanged. The name (Joshua) is from , Neh 8:17, the later form of , Jehovah-help, Num 13:16, Mat 1:21. Compare Act 7:45, Heb 4:8. Some of the Greek fathers absurdly derived the word from , as Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem who says it means saviour among the Hebrews, but in the Greek tongue -Healer. , , or the anointed one, is applied to such as had enjoyed the sacred unction. The priest is often called , Lev 4:3; Lev 4:5; Lev 4:16; the king was also called , 1Sa 12:3; 1Sa 12:5, as is also Cyrus, Isa 45:1; and the prophets also get the same title- , Psa 105:15 -my anointed ones, Abraham being specially referred to, Gen 20:7. The word is applied in pre-eminence to Jesus, and the reason is given in Luk 1:35; Mat 3:16; Mat 12:18; Joh 3:34; Act 10:38. In the Received Text the last clause of the verse reads- <\/p>\n

    () -because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. This order of the words is found only in K, L, in the Gothic version, and in some of the Greek fathers. But the order is found in A, B, C, D, F, , in the Itala, Vulgate, Syriac, and in many Latin fathers. The reading is doubtful. It is found in C, D3, K, L, many MSS., versions, and fathers, and is adopted by Tischendorf and Ellicott; whereas the shorter has in its favour A, B, D1, F, , etc., and is received by Lachmann, Alford, Meyer, and Lightfoot. It may be said that was taken from Rom 3:20; but it may be replied that is a correction of the longer : the latter, however, is not so likely. The clause is a free use of Old Testament language, and in Paul’s manner it is naturally introduced by which in meaning is not materially different from in the later writers-because that, because. It is not a formal quotation introduced by a formula, but rather a reminiscence of Psa 143:2 in the Sept., . That the allusion is to that psalm, is indicated by the Hebraism . The apostle leaves out , which implies an appeal to Jehovah; and to give the clause special adaptation to the case before him, he adds . The Hebrew reads, . The negative to the verb, as the Masoretic punctuation shows (Ewald), and forms a universal negative. Exo 12:43; Jos 11:12; Jer 32:16. So in the Greek: non-justification is predicated of all flesh. Compare Mat 24:22, Luk 1:37, Act 10:14. The idiom is found chiefly in sentential quotations, though it occurs often in the Septuagint. Exo 12:16; Exo 20:10; Deu 5:14; 2Sa 15:11. It is put by Leusden in the sixth section of his sixteenth class of Hebraisms: Philologus Heb. Graec. p. 118, ed. 1785, Lugd. Batav. See also Vorstius, De Heb. N. T. p. 91; Pars Altera, p. 91, ed. 1705, Lipsiae. The Seventy now and then render by -, or simply . Compare Deu 8:9, Jos 10:8; Jos 23:9. It is especially when the negative precedes the article that the Hebraism occurs. Winer, 26, 1. The , equivalent to , is perhaps chosen in preference to the of the Septuagint, as in the apostolic times, and so close on the life-giving work of Christ, with its associates was acquiring a new and higher meaning. is all humanity-the race without exception,- Luk 3:6; Joh 17:2; Act 2:17; 1Pe 1:24,-representing in the Septuagint , there being apparently in the phrase no accessory notion of frailty, or sin, or death (Beza, Schrader). It means, however, man as he is, though not insinuating his inability in natur adfectibus et cupiditatibus sensuum obnoxia (Schott); nor does it carry any allusion to the overweening estimate placed by the Jews on their fleshly descent from Abraham (Windischmann). The future , as the ethical future, affirms possibility under the aspect of futurity, and with the negative particle denotes something that neither can or will happen. Webster, Syntax of the New Testament, p. 84. It thus expresses a general truth which shall ever continue in force-quae omnino non fiunt, et ne fieri quidem possunt. Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 160. The future contains no allusion to a coming day of reckoning (Hofmann); nor is there any such allusion in the psalm, for the phrase enter not into judgment with Thy servant refers to present divine inquisition or trial. Peile, p. 238. The apostle in the clause bases his reasoning upon an assertion of the Old Testament familiar to Peter and to his Jewish auditors. The quotation is more than an axiom in our theology (Alford), and it is not a mere repetition of what is found in the first clause of the verse, but it is an authoritative confirmation of the major premiss of the argument. Usteri, Lehr-begr. p. 90; Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, p. 219. <\/p>\n

    Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16. The time was past when the national standing of the Jews meant anything to them religiously. No man (whether Jew or Gentile) could be justified or saved by the works of the law. That system had been “nailed to the cross” (Col 2:14), and the observance of the social customs was voluntary only, and could not be forced upon any person of either nation. But all justification before God must be obtained through faith in Christ–by a working faith in Him, and not by the works of the law. use of the word, which is that the things of a worldly life had been put to death by the conversion of Paul to Christ. The same thought is set forth in Rom 8:13 and Col 3:5, where the apostle commands us to mortify (put to death) the deeds of the flesh. Paul was induced to do this by his faith in Christ. Being crucified with Christ shows some kind of association with Him in connection with sin. That relation may well be expressed by saying that Christ died for sin and Paul died (figuratively) to sin. After his life of sin was put to death through Christ, his spiritual being was enabled to live through Him. (See Rom 6:8-12.) Live in the flesh denotes that his life of faith is accomplished while living in the fleshly body.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    Gal 2:16. Yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law (law-works, Gesetzeswerke), but only through faith in Jesus Christ, we ourselves also became believers in Christ Jesus. Here the term justify is first introduced in this Epistle. On the important doctrine of justification see the Excursus below, and the comments on Rom 1:17 and Rom 3:20. It means acquittal from the guilt and punishment of sin in the tribunal of the just and holy God, on the ground of Christs atoning death and through the medium of faith by which we apprehend Christs merits and make his righteousness our own. By works of law, the whole law, moral as well as ceremonial.<\/p>\n

    Shall no flesh be justified, lit., shall all flesh not be justified, or find no justification. An expressive Hebraism. The negation attaches to the verb, and not to the noun. But the genius of the English language requires such a transposition. Flesh in Hebrew is often used for man, living being. The future tense expresses moral impossibility: such a thing can never happen. The passage is an authoritative confirmation of his own statement by an allusion to Psa 143:2 : Enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. Comp. Rom 3:20, where the passage is quoted in the same form with the same addition of works of law.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. [If thou, being a Jew to begin with, livest, as is shown by your past custom, like a Gentile, and not like the Jews, by what right do you demand, by your changed custom, that the Gentiles should live like Jews? For even you and I, both being born Jews, and both taking the best view of ourselves possible, and regarding ourselves after the most untempered and unwarranted pride and prejudice of our race as infinitely superior to the degraded heathen (as we were wont to call them), both in righteousness and acceptability to God, even we, I say, despite all this, were forced to see and acknowledge that a man is not justified by those works of the law in which we trusted, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so that we believed on Christ Jesus that we might obtain the justification that comes through him, rather than the vain and insufficient justification of the law, for the Scripture itself (Psa 143:2) says,” By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”]<\/p>\n

    Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

    2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith {q} 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 {r} no flesh be justified.<\/p>\n

    (q) In Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

    (r) No man, and in this word “flesh” there is a great force, by which is meant that the nature of man is utterly corrupt.<\/p>\n

    Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    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 … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:16”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29041","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}