Galatians
2:15-21
We who are
Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles, since we know that a person
is not justified by deeds of law except through the faithfulness of Jesus
Christ, even we have placed our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we might be
justified by faith in Christ and not deeds of law, for no flesh will be
justified by deeds of law.
But [what]
if, while seeking to be justified in Christ we have also been found to be
sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?
Certainly not! For if I rebuild
what I destroyed, I confirm myself a transgressor. For I, through the Law, died to the Law so
that I might live to God. I have been
crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And what I now live in the flesh, I live in
faith, that is in the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for
me. I do not reject the grace of
God. For if righteousness [comes about]
through the Law, then Christ died unnecessarily.
_________________________
1. We
who are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles...
As the next statement makes clear, Paul is referring to "we Jewish
believers" and although he probably is not still telling us what he said
to Peter, the "we" refers to people like him and Peter--Jewish
believers.
“Sinners from the Gentiles” is not tongue in cheek. What is a sinner if not a
law breaker and what other law would be in view other than the Jewish law?
Clearly Gentiles don't keep the Jewish law, so sinners is quite literal here.
Gentiles are clearly sinners. Paul plays out this idea in the whole of Romans
1:18-32--"Gentiles are sinners."
To some extent, we should think of Paul as starting out with common ground
between him and Jewish believers like Peter. As we will see, however, he
considers Peter's perspective to be incomplete because Peter only sees half of
the equation. Paul will round out the argument when he gets to 2:17--we Jews,
even Jewish believers, are sinners too. That is reminiscent to the progression
of thought in Romans 2:1-3:20, namely, that Jews have sinned too. In fact, all
[both Gentile and Jew] have sinned and lack the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
2. since we know that a person is not
justified...
Justification here is a legal term. The issue is on what basis a person might
be considered righteous or "not guilty" in the divine court. Perhaps
more to the point, the issue is on what basis a person might not face God's
judgment. While the question is primarily a judicial
question, its most crucial relevance pertains to the Day of Judgment and is
thus eschatological.
N. T. Wright's questionably claims that it is also covenantal, meaning that a primary part of the meaning is
whether or not a person is a member of the people of God and
3. ...since we know that a person is not justified on the basis of works of law except through the faith
of Jesus Christ...
"Works of law" must certainly refer to works of the Jewish law. Paul is still stating common
ground between himself, Peter, and other "conservative" Jewish
believers. None of them, in fact no Jew at
all, would claim that they deserved God's favor. They of course did
believe that works of the law were an essential part of the equation, but all
would have agreed with Paul that deeds of the law, apart from God's
graciousness, did not earn God's acceptance of them.
"Works of law" might have had a strong connotation of the kinds of
issues Jewish sects are notorious for debating. Rabbi so and so says that such
and such makes the hand unclean, while so and so other rabbi says it doesn't.
4QMMT is a
The natural force of the word usually translated as "but" is more
naturally translated "except" or "unless" (ei me). Since Paul is still laying out
common ground between himself and Peter/conservative Jewish Christianity, this
perspective is perfectly natural. Peter believes that the faithfulness of Jesus
unto death (in other words, the atonement afforded through his death) is an
essential element in justification before God. BUT, works of law are also an essential part of the
equation for James and friends.
To take the phrase "faith of Jesus Christ" as a reference to the
faithfulness of Jesus and in particular his faithful death is to take a
particular position in a long and well documented debate. I personally became
finally convinced when I came to a particular conclusion on the logic of 2 Cor.
4:13. That was the straw that tipped the scales for me. However, a more obvious
argument is the similarity between Rom. 5:19 and 3:22. The parallel is
striking, as pointed out by Luke Timothy Johnson:
"Just as through the disobedience of the one man many became sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man many will become righteous"
"through the faith of Jesus Christ ... being justified [declared
righteous]"
The faith of Jesus Christ here refers to his obedience to death (Phil. 2:8) and
thus is a shorthand way of referring to Jesus' atoning death, the redemption
provided through the atoning sacrifice God made through Jesus' blood.
4. We Jews ... since we know that a person is not justified by works of
[Jewish] law except through the faith[ful death] of Jesus Christ, even we have put our faith in Messiah Jesus...
The novelty here for Paul is to point out that in fact Jewish believers have
not only put their faith in God and what God has done through Jesus, they have
in a sense put their faith in Jesus as Messiah. We are so programmed to think
of faith in Christ that we miss that this is in fact the more unusual way of
thinking of faith both for Paul and even moreso for other Jewish Christians.
Rather, their faith was primarily in God and in what God had done through Jesus. Romans 4 is
all about faith in God, not faith in Christ. And in 1 Thessalonians, in my view
before Paul started getting really thick into these debates, he speaks of faith
toward God (1 Thess. 1:8). God
remains throughout Paul's writings, in my view, the primary object of faith.
But Paul certainly can also speak of placing faith in Christ, as this verse and
other places where he uses the verb form pisteuo.
We are prone to draw false distinctions between the verb "to believe"
and the noun "faith" because they look different in English. But it
is the same root: pisteuo
(believe) and pistis (faith).
To believe thus often means to have faith, although we have to be careful
because these words have a range of meanings and should not be translated the
same in every instance.
Hopefully everyone knows that the word Christ
is the Greek translation of Messiah. Most of the time, the word lurks without Paul
drawing much attention to it. But I think it has meaning for him (see, for
example,
5. ... we have put our faith in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justifed by faith of Christ and not by works
of law...
I think Paul is having a little fun here. The expression "faith of
Christ" is deliciously ambiguous, as the history of the scholarly debate
shows. Is it faith in Christ or the faith of Christ? I think given the lead up
it must be both, a clever double entendre. But I think that given his comment
to faith in Christ that has
just preceded, it has the upper hand. In other words, if I gave the tie to
Richard Hays in 2:16a, I'm going to give it primarily to Dunn here in 2:16c.
So Paul sets up a contrast. The balance of the phrases with what are called
"objective genitives" speaks against seeing Hays' interpretation
here: faithfulness of Jesus and not doing the law. We are justified by trusting
Christ and not by doing law. The principle of justification by faith will then
play itself out throughout Paul's subsequent argument.
6. ...for by works of law no flesh will
be justified.
Here Paul cites and modifies Psalm 143:2. The verse says that no one living is
righteous before God. Paul changes "no one living" to "no
flesh." Flesh is of course a characteristic category for Paul, as we have
seen. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
Paul also adds the phrase "works of law" to the quote. In this way
again those living can be justified through faith of Christ, even if not by
works of law. Just as a final parting blow, Paul's use of Scripture here is the
death blow to fundamentalist and biblicist interpretation. As I've argued
elsewhere, we cannot use Scripture as Paul if we do not see the Word of God as
something bigger than the words of the text. Paul found the text in the Word of God, he did not find the Word of God
in the text.
More to
come…