Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Galatians 2:16 - 2:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Gal_2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί , a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες , and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ
Gal_2:16 is usually construed so that εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin with ἡμεῖς in Gal_2:15, and this ἡμεῖς is again taken up by the subsequent καὶ ἡμεῖς (so Castalio and others, Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), or sumus is supplied after ἁμαρτωλοί , a new sentence is commenced by εἰδότες , and καὶ ἡμεῖς κ . τ . λ . is taken as apodosis (Beza and others; also Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, de conform. N.T. Lachm. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann, Matthias, Möller). Both forms of construction would give εἰδότες … Χριστοῦ as the motive for the ἐπιστεύσαμεν . But in this way the statement, how Paul and Peter (for these are the subject; see on Gal_2:15) 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 εἰδότες … ἐπιστεύσαμεν . Both of them were in fact miraculously and suddenly 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 εἰδότες , and a period after Χριστοῦ , “We are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing however” ( εἰδότες still belonging to the ἐσμέν , which has to be supplied), that is, since we nevertheless know, that a man is not justified, etc.; so that what thou, Peter, doest (Gal_2:15), completely conflicts with this certainty, which we have notwithstanding of our Jewish pre-eminence.
οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ] The emphatically prefixed δικαιοῦται is negatived: a man is not justified. As to the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι , see on Rom_1:17. Here also it appears clearly as an actus forensis, 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, which would be the determining ground of God’s acquittal; by means of faith, which is imputed by God as righteousness (Rom_5:5; Rom_5:21 f.),—these are the contrasted points, while the idea of δικαιοῦσθαι is the same. Comp. on Rom_3:25 f.
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ] νόμου is not subjective (works, which the law by its precepts calls forth), but objective: works, which relate to the law, that is, works by which the precepts of the law are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the ἁμαρτήματα νόμου , Wis_2:12. See on Rom_2:15. Our passage testifies also in favour of this view by the contrast of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , inasmuch as the one relation ( ἔργων ) to the one object ( νόμου ) stands correlatively contrasted with the other relation ( πίστεως ) to the other object ( Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ). Schott, following the older expositors (including Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus), quite erroneously limits νόμος to the ceremonial law,—a limitation which never occurs in the N.T.[95] (see on Rom_3:20, and Schmid, bibl. Theol. 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 law, viewed in its requirements jointly and severally, which in its full extent, and in the way willed by God, no man can fulfil. Comp. Gal_3:10; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 259.
ἐὰν μή ] not a compromise between justification by works and justification by faith in the Jewish-Christian consciousness (Holsten, in spite of the apodosis), 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 etc. Comp. Hymn. Cer. 77 f., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος αἴτιος ἀθανάτων , εἰ μὴ νεφεληγερέτα Ζεύς . Comp. on Mat_12:4; Rom_14:14. See also on Gal_1:7. Consequently we have here neither justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the Catholic view), nor Christ’s fulfilment of the law, which is apprehended 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), of which, however, nothing is here said. But here in ἐὰν μή we have the “sola fide” of Luther and his Church. Comp. on Rom_3:28. 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. This is the moral completion of the relation of the law to redemption.
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ] object: on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mar_11:22; see on Rom_3:22, and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 112.
ἐξ and διά 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; 2Co_3:11; Eph_1:7). In διά (comp. Gal_3:26) faith is conceived as the subjective condition of justification—the presence of which is the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the man, as soon as he believes, enters immediately into the state of justification; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what Hofmann says) nothing to do with this relation, any more than ἐξ postpones the being righteous, as the result of action, until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived at any moment of life, as a result for the time being.
καὶ ἡμεῖς ] begins a new sentence (see above). That which Paul had just laid before Peter as a point on which both were convinced,
ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου , ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστ . Ἰ . Χ .,—he now confirms by reminding him of the righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become believers ( ἐπιστεύσαμεν ); so that καὶ ἡμεῖς , even we both, supplies the special application of the foregoing general ἄνθρωπος . The order Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν lays a greater stress on the Messianic character of the historical person who is the object of faith, than is the case in the usual order (comp. Gal_2:4; Gal_3:26).
ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ ] Comp. Rom_3:20. These words, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου , take up again what had just been said with solemn emphasis, by means of the confirmatory ὅτι , since indeed. Πᾶσα σάρξ conveys the idea of “all men” (comp. above, ἄνθρωπος ), 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. 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 (from Psa_143:2), as Wieseler and others think. An involuntary echo of the language may have occurred, while the idea was more precisely defined. The negation is here also not to be separated from the verb; for it is not πᾶσα σάρξ which is negatived, but δικαιωθήσεται in reference to πᾶσα σάρξ . Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 26) aptly says: “non probabitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis.” Lastly, the future denotes that which never will occur. The reference to the judgment (Rom_5:19), which is discovered here by Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of place. Comp. Gal_2:21. It is otherwise, Gal_5:5; 2Ti_4:8.
[94] In the small edition; in the larger one the usual punctuation is followed.
[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.
[96] So also Jatho, Br. an d. Gal. p. 18 f.
[97] See the constantly repeated attacks on the part of the Catholics against the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, in Möhler, Symbol. p. 132, ed. 4; Reithmayr, p. 179 ff. More unprejudiced is Döllinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and elsewhere. On the other hand, Romang (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much concession to the Catholic justification by works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erroneously assumed a gradual progress of justification.