Galatians 2:16

The force of the prepositions is obscured by the rendering of A. V. Literally, -Knowing that man is not justified from (i.e. as the result of) works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ … even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from (i.e. as the result of) faith in Christ, and not from works of the law; for from works of the law shall no flesh be justified." In the language of St Paul man is justified fromfaith, and throughfaith and byfaith (dative without preposition expressed, Romans 3:28), never foror on the score of faith. In Romans 3:30, God is said to justify "the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith", where the emphasis is not on the prepositions but on faith. This is clear from the fact that whereas in this passage God is said to justify the Jews fromfaith, in Galatians 3:8, He is said to justify the Gentiles fromfaith, comp. Hebrews 10:38, and Habakkuk 2:4 LXX. Vers. In Philippians 3:9, we meet with the expression -the righteousness which is of God upon (condition of) faith".

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

Nothing in my hand I bring;

Simply to Thy Cross I cling.

A shipwrecked sailor was trying to save his life by swimming, employing one hand for that purpose, while with the other he clutched a bag of provisions which he had rescued from the sinking ship. When his strength was nearly exhausted, a vessel came in sight. He was descried and a rope thrown to him. He seized it with one hand. -Lay hold with both hands, or we cannot save you". He let go the bag of provisions and was hauled safely on board the friendly vessel. His life was saved apart fromhis provisions. But he found that it could not be maintained withoutthem. See Appendix III. p. 87.

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

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

for by the works … justified This is a quotation, not quite literal, from Psalms 143:2. It is made also in Romans 3:20, being there introduced for a special purpose, as referring to Jews, by the words, "We know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law". It is here used for a similar purpose, and as a decision from which no appeal was possible. See note on c. Galatians 3:22.

no flesh a Hebraism = no human being.

Note on Ch. Galatians 2:16

The Revised Version renders, -knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, save through faith in Jesus Christ", giving in the margin -but only", as an alternative of -save". Alford translates -except". Though a full discussion of the use of the Greek particles here employed is beyond the scope of this work, yet the question involved is of such momentous issues, that the correct rendering of the passage must be not only stated, but maintained. Two particles, of which the literal English equivalent is -if not", occur in combination about 150 times in the New Testament. In the large majority of passages in which they are found, there can be on difference of opinion as to their force or proper translation, viz. -if not", -unless", -except", In a few passages, however, it is impossible to adopt one of these renderings without sacrificing either sense or truth, and reducing the statement to an absurdity. To the instance quoted in the note on ch. Galatians 1:19 (Luke 4:26-27, where the A.V. is of course wrong), may be added Matthew 12:4, and Revelation 21:27, where it is right in rendering -but only" and -but". It may be observed that the question is not whether these particles ever lose their exceptiveforce (see Bp Lightfoot, note on ch. Galatians 1:19, and Prof. Scholefield, Preface to 3rd edition of Sermons on Justification by Faith, pp. 35 37). Nor again is it here necessary to explain the refinements of Greek idiom by reference to the subtleties of Greek thought. The transition from the exceptive, -save", to the exclusive, -but only", is in certain passages undoubted and may be logically deduced. It is clear that for the purposes of correct translation(i.e. if we would convey to an English reader the true sense of the original), we must employ -but", or -but only" in certain passages as the equivalent of particles which are elsewhere rendered by -save" or -except". It remains to determine which is the just rendering in the passage under consideration. Now, if words have any meaning, the R.V. (which is ex hypothesia correctionof the A.V.) teaches what has been termed "a mixed justification by faith and works", the efficacy of works for justificationbeing 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 notby 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 Romans 3:21 we read, "But now apart from lawthe righteousness of God has been manifested, even the righteousness of God through faithin Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe"; and, Romans 3:28, "We reckon then that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (perhaps, works of law, i.e. acts of obedience to anylaw, ceremonial or moral)". Compare Romans 4:4-6. In all these passages St Paul uses an adverb which means -apart from", -independently of", rather than -without". The sinner is justified through faith only, apart from any works of his own. Christ's fulfilment of the law His perfect obedience and His atoning death needs not and admits not any supplement on the part of the sinner to satisfy the righteousness of God. We who believe "are accounted righteous before God, onlyfor the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings", Art. xi. But though "the works of the law" have absolutely no part in our justification, because the faith through which we are justified is - apart from" them, yet St Paul nowhere asserts that we are justified withoutworks. 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 Ephesians 2:8-10, and for his doctrine of justification by faith -apart from" works, Philippians 3:9.

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