Skip to main content

Paul's Argument in Galatians 2:15-21

15 "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. [1] So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ [1] and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

17 "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn't that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God [1], who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (TNIV)
Here Paul continues the argument he made in the last section, explaining on theological grounds why Peter's behavior was so problematic. In verses 15 and 16 Paul affirms a basic point of agreement between them that he can use as a starting point for the rest of his argument. Both Peter and he know that it is only by the faithfulness of Christ in his death that one becomes part of God's people. Works of the Jewish Law do not contribute to one's justification. Peter knows that one doesn't need to become a Jew, to live like a Jew including being circumcised and following kosher food laws to be part of God's people. Through the cross God acted to break down the barrier between Jew and Greek showing that Abraham's family was meant to be a worldwide family. All one needs to do is believe to enter that family. At the end of verse 16 Paul alludes to Psalm 143:2 to provide Scriptural proof for his point. No one can keep the law well enough to please God anyways. Christ's work is necessary because of our sin.

In the following two verses Paul deals with the charge that would have been leveled against Jewish Christians who ate with Gentiles, namely that eating with sinners means that you condone sin (Jesus was similarly accused when he ate with tax collectors and prostitutes). Paul turns that around and claims the opposite, putting pressure on his opponents. If one of the main purposes of Christ's death was to expand the people of God to a multi-ethnic family, then doing anything to build divisions along ethnic lines, like forcing Gentile converts to follow the law would be an act of sin.

Paul continues on the offensive in the last three verses. His core claim is that requiring law observance invalidates the work of Christ to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile. All who are in Christ have died to the need to follow the law because they have been co-crucified with Christ. We have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection which frees us from the bondage of sin and thus makes the law no longer the primary means of grace to keep us in good covenantal relations with God. The grace that keeps us in God's family is the grace we receive because of Jesus death on our behalf.

[1] There is some uncertainty here about the meaning of the phrase rendered by the TNIV as 'faith in Christ.' Many interpreters opt for the 'faithfulness of Christ.' Both are grammatically possible. See Fee (84-88) for a strong defense of the traditional rendering and Longenecker (87) for a concise argument in favor of the latter option. In this particular instance it seems to depend on how repetitive you think Paul is being. Is he expressing the same exact idea in three separate instances in a very short space in 2:16? Fee counters by claiming that it is precisely this repetition that makes the rhetoric effective. What's not commonly looked at is how Paul's allusion to Psalm 143 may help clear up the difficulty. There salvation is clearly based on God's own faithfulness just one verse prior to the one Paul cites. That plus the unlikeliness of the repetition very tentatively pushes me toward the 'faithfulness of Christ' as being the best translation.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…