Grace Excludes All Human Merit; Gal.
Galatians 2:16 NASB
“nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but
through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we
may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by
the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”
The verse begins with a
perfect active participle of the verb oida
[o)ida], the word
for knowledge. This is an adverbial participle, which means that it is going to
add something to the verb; it is going to explain the main verb in a fuller
way. So we have to understand what the main verb is in the sentence. The phrase
that follows the “that” is a subordinate clause, it is
not the main clause. The main clause comes after “even”—“even we have believed”
contains the main verb, the aorist active indicative of pisteuo [pisteuw],
which is the main verb to have faith or to believe or to trust. The participle
is going to tell us something about the action of the main verb, the aorist
active indicative of pisteuo. Why
make an issue out of this? In Greek grammar to understand the tense of the
participle it is dependent upon the tense of the main verb. A participle really
has no independent tense because it is dependent verbal, not an independent
verb. The perfect participle of oida
depends upon pisteuo, and a
perfect participle shows action that precedes the action of the main verb. That
is going to give us a very important point to understand here. And because it
lacks the article it means it is going to be an adverbial participle, and
adverbial perfect participles are almost always causal. So Paul is saying
“because we know something”—“because we have known,” the perfect tense emphasises
the present reality of a completed past action. So from X-time in the past up
to Y-time in the present we have known something. The action here of knowing is
going to precede the action of believing. You have to know something before you
can believe it. That is the first application from this: that faith is not
based on a feeling, on an intuition; faith is based on knowledge of
something—because we have known something we believed it. By using an aorist
tense it summarises all of the action in one element and places it in the past.
Translation: “Nevertheless
because we knew [something],” and here we have the Greek word hoti [o(ti] which indicates indirect discourse, and probably the best way to
translate this is, “we know that: [colon, then the principle] a man is not
justified by the works of the law.” The main verb here is the present passive
indicative of dikaioo [dikaiow] which is related to the verb for justice and
righteousness and how they work together. dikaioo
means to put something in right relationship legally; it is a forensic
term, it has to do with the courtroom. At the point of salvation we were
imputed the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ and God the Father declares
us to be righteous, but we are not righteous in our experience. Justification
itself is a forensic act—legal principles related to the courtroom of God: His
justice and His righteousness. His righteousness provides the absolute standard
and His justice is the outworking or the practice of that standard, the
application of it to His creatures. There is a principle: Man is not justified
by something, and here we have a very important phrase: “the works of the law”—ergon nomou [e)rgwn nomou], a genitive form plus the preposition ek [e)k], “out from the
source of the works of law.” There is something missing in that phrase that is
added to the English text, and it is not in italics. It is the word “the,” our
definite article. If we say “the law” then it specifies one particular law as
over against any other law code. In this context if there were a definite
article here then we would rightfully conclude it was talking about the Mosaic
Law. The context is definitely talking about the Mosaic Law, but because there
is no definite article in the Greek here it is emphasising the quality of the
noun nomos [nomoj], which means any
law. It includes any law, no matter what it is—anybody who comes up with a
list of stipulations which would form the basis for a relationship with God:
that if you follow these rules and procedures then you can have a relationship
with God and gain His approbation, and God will be impressed enough with your
life to let you into heaven. That is a law code. The Mosaic Law is simply one
kind of law code.
A man is not declared
righteous or vindicated by works of law. Contrast: “but through faith in Christ
Jesus.” This is a very strong contrast. Paul is setting up to say there is only
one of two options. You are either trying to get vindicated before God by works
of law or you are going to rely on Jesus Christ. It is one or the other, you
can’t blend it together. You can’t say faith plus works. It is either faith or
works; one or the other, and faith plus works is
nothing. Here again we have a very important construction in the Greek, dia [dia] plus the genitive. The use of the genitive expresses
means or instrumentality—it is through
faith. The cause of our salvation is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. dia plus the accusative case would be
causal, but it doesn’t use that here.
Then we have a purpose result
clause expressed by the particle hina
[i(na]—we believed for a purpose and it produced a result: “that
we may be justified by faith.” This is an aorist active subjunctive of the verb
dikaioo [dikaiow]. The subjunctive is the mood of potentiality and
when expressing purpose in the Greek there is always hina plus the subjunctive. The subjunctive is the mood of
potentiality and it often emphasises volition: your decision whether to be
justified or not. What we have here is not a present or a future subjunctive. Usually
a decision is put in the future. It is in the future you have potentiality, not
in the past. What Paul is saying is “we believed in the past that we might be
justified,” and by using this he is saying “we had a potential and we took it
and we are saved.” The potential has been secured in the past so why now try to
gain God’s approval through legal obedience? The potential was resolved in the past. That
is the aorist tense, the potential is no longer a potential. Why try to gain
God’s approval through all this legalistic nonsense? That is the thrust of all
this grammar.
The final statement: “by the
works of law shall no flesh be justified.” This is a strong phrase to make sure
we get the point. Literally in the Greek it is “all flesh shall not be
justified,” which is bad English. All flesh includes every single human being. The
Law was not designed for salvation. Romans