Chapter 2 vs 11-21

Vs 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, ( hyp conj de, "but" + sub conj o[te "when" + N M S pr nm Khfa/j "Cephas" + A A I 3s e;rcomai "came" + prep w/Ac F S eivj VAntio,ceia "unto Antioch") I opposed him to his face, (A A I 1s avnqi,sthmi "I opposed; I resisted" + D M S 3s pro auvto,j "to him" + prep w/ Ac N S kata, pro,swpon "to the face" ) because he stood condemned. ( sub conj o[ti "that; because" (introduces content of opposition) + Pf P P N M S kataginw,skw "having been condemned" + I A I 3s eivmi,"he was being"

Far from being subordinate to the Jerusalem elders, Paul was perfectly within his rights to publicly rebuke one of them if needed, as seen in this example.
An inferior cannot take his superior to task, but Paul recognized that Peter was wrong in a principle of application, and publicly told him so.
Shortly after the meeting of the Pillars of the church and Paul, a new persecution broke out against church.
James, the son of Zebedee, was put to death by King Herod, and Peter was arrested. Ac 12:2-3
In all likelihood, the results of the meeting had reached the ruling religious leaders, who then petitioned Herod to attack the Christian elders. cp Jn 11:46-53; Mat 27:62-66
Peter was forced to flee from Jerusalem, and at some point wound up in Antioch, the headquarters of the Gentile church.
This was not contrary to the agreement between the Pillars, he was certainly within his rights as an Apostle to travel to another church.
His presence there was not primarily to evangelize or set up a new church, but to instruct and supervise. cp Ac 8:14
We do not know if he arrived before Paul and Barnabas first missionary journey, since Acts is silent about Peter being in Antioch, but he had been there long enough to develop relationships with the Gentile Christians. v2
Paul did not immediately oppose Peter, only after Peter changed his regular custom of table fellowship with the Gentiles; i.e. he began to misapply.
Peter was, as an Apostle, held to a higher standard than an average believer Paul could not have taken him aside and privately rebuked him to undo the damage.
So he publicly upbraided him, to his face, and in the presence of others.
Some verses that indicate what meaning is behind opposed ( avnqisthmi ) are Ac 13:8 and Rm 13:2.
This was not a gentle resistance, it required a forceful delivery.
The reason for this opposition was that Peter was a (rightfully) condemned man; he was guilty of the sin of hypocrisy.
He was not condemned in the sense of losing his salvation; indeed he recovered and went on to fulfill Gods will for his life.
Any of us can, and will, fail perhaps even dramatically but we can recover and move on.
"Stood condemned" is one word in the Greek ( kataginwskw "to know something against" and it is a Perfect Passive Participle:

the Perfect tense indicates past action with existing results Peter had been wrong, and what he did was still wrong

the Passive voice means that Peter violated a principle of BD, and Paul recognized that violation Peter had not realized his failure yet, i.e. he was not willfully sinning, but was rationalizing his actions under his STA

the Participle relates the continuous nature of the action he did not misapply once, he continued to pervert BD out of fear

In addition, the Imperfect Active Indicative of "was" ( eivmi ) means that as long as he maintained his STA failings, he would continue to be "one having been condemned".
Paul has made it abundantly clear that his presence at Jerusalem in no sense showed any subservience to the apostles, by repeatedly showing his equality with and independence from them, as a higher authority.
His critics charged that he was a weak, vacillating person, who would not stand up to his betters but wrote strong letters to hide behind. 2Co 10:10
But the historical data proved differently, as Peter could attest Paul was gentle when necessary, but would not stand for leading others astray. 5:12
One more nail in the coffin of the Judaizers: Paul publicly rebuked the preeminent Apostle of the early Church!
Before Peters failing could do serious damage to the Gentile church, God used Paul to reform the failing of Peter, and thereby provided Paul with one of his most sound proofs of his Apostleship.

Vs 12 For prior to the coming (sub con ga,r "for" +prep w/G da pro, o` w/A A If e;rcomai "prior to the coming" ) of certain men from James, (indef pro Ac M P ti.j "certain men" + prep w/G M S avpo, VIa,kwboj "from James"(apo has the idea of separation) he used to eat with the Gentiles; ( I A I 3s sunesqi,w "he was eating" + prep w/ G N P meta, to, e;qnoj "with the Gentiles" ) but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, (hyper con de, "but" + sub con o[te "when" + A A I 3p e;rcomai "they came" + I A I 3s u`poste,llw "he was drawing back; he was withdrawing" + c.c. kai, "and" + I A I 3s avfori,zw "he was separating" + Ac M 3s pro e`autou/ "himself") fearing the party of the circumcision. ( P P P N M S fobe,w "being made afraid of" +Ac M P d.a. o` "those" + prep w/ Ab F S evk peritomh, "out from the party of circumcision")

Vs 13 And the rest of the Jews ( c.c. kai, "and" + N M P w/da o` loipo,j "the rest; the remaining" + N M P VIoudai/oj "Jews") joined him in hypocrisy, ( A P I 3p sunupokri,nomai "joined in hypocrisy" (the compound means join with under false judgement/pretense) + D M 3s pro auvto,j "with him") with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (hyper con w[ste "so that; with the result that" c.c. asc kai, "even" + N M S Barnaba/j "Barnabas" + A P I 3s sunapa,gw "was carried away with" + G M 3p pro auvto,j "their" + I M S w/da h` u`po,krisij "hypocrisy")

Peter had established the regular practice of eating with Gentiles once he arrived in Antioch.
He knew this was completely legitimate, based on the revelation he received in Ac 10:9ff, and had answered the legalists on this very point in Ac 11:17
He had not tried to coerce Titus, a Gentile, into becoming an adherent of the Mosaic Law, why would he do so now?
Presumably, the food he ate with the Gentiles was not in strict accordance with the dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law, either.
But since the Law had been superseded by the New Covenant, he knew he was not violating Gods will. cp Mk 7:19
These "men from James" were the members of the believing Pharisees, as seen in Ac 15:1, 5 "some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed".
Having been unsuccessful subverting the freedom of Christians in Judea, they began moving into the Gentile churches, seeking to bring those who were uninformed under their bondage.
Evidently, while one group was attacking the Antioch believers, others were attacking the churches Paul had just established, including the Galatians.
"From James" does not mean they were sent from James as emissaries, or legitimate apostles. Ac 15:24 "to whom we gave no instruction"
The Greek preposition avpo has the meaning of separation from ; i.e. they had rejected James authority, separated from him, and gone out on their own.
Before these men arrived, Peter had enjoyed his Christian freedom, eating whatever and with whomever he desired.
But the august appearance of religious piety can be a powerful intimidation.
How could he, an uneducated Jew, dare to compare his understanding of the Will of God with these men who had memorized the Torah and Talmud?
The Imperfect tense indicates that Peters withdrawal was gradual, suggesting a sneaky retreat from the truth.
By eating with Gentiles, Peter would have been in violation of the legalistic traditions of the elders, which forbade eating with Gentiles. Jn 4:9
Under the Mosaic Law, there was no such provision, as long as the food met the dietary restrictions.
The distortion began with their (faulty) interpretation of Dan 1:8f
He gave in to their intimidation tactics, and even though he knew there was nothing wrong with his fellowship among the Gentiles, he acted as though he should separate from them.
There is a legitimate separation:

from unbelievers 2Co 6:15-17

from reversionistic, unrepentant believers 1Co 5:11

Peter knew he was under no commandment to obey Jewish dietary guidelines, but he pretended to think the same as these men "from James" out of fear.
"Fearing" is in the passive voice, meaning that the "men from James" sought to intimidate him, and bring him under their control.
If they could capture the great Peter, surely others would (and did) follow.
Many of the early Christians, scattered by the persecution in Jerusalem, had settled in Antioch, so there was a mix of Jewish and Gentile believers in the congregation.
From force of habit, the Jews would have eaten (mainly) the foods they had eaten all their lives, though it is conceivable they would have found new favorites among the Gentile meals.
However, the intimidation of these religious icons, Peters defection, and the failure to apply BD combined so that the Jewish Christians began to separate from their Gentile brethren, with whom they had been enjoying fellowship all this time.
The Greek word for "hypocrisy" means "to speak from under", and was originally used for an actor, speaking from beneath a mask.
Peter hid his true self and beliefs behind a mask of adherence to the traditions of the elders, in fear of the Judaizers.
But what could the Judaizers do to Peter?

they were not overtly attached to the Sanhedrin: they could not arrest him

they could ridicule and malign him in Jerusalem (as would happen to Paul)

he was afraid of losing popularity and prestige, and that from a group of self-righteous hypocrites whose doctrines were heretical and whose tactics were deceitful

It is important to remember that all men have a Sin Nature, and anyone can succumb to it Peters grid was fear. Mk 14:66-72
Peter knew that before salvation all men are equally separated from God; and after salvation all men are equally reconciled to God, but he was now publicly supporting the heresy that there were two bodies of Christ within the Church Universal, and because of genetics one group was superior.
The claim of some Christian groups that the Bible forbids the mingling of races is totally spurious, and such a claim is a blight on the Church, an offense before God, and a reproach before the world.
Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey (Ac 14:26), and this situation confronted them.
Even Barnabas, who had been included with Paul as "unto the Gentiles" in v9, was deceived and "carried away" by their specious arguments.
The implication is that Paul alone stood for the Truth.
Principle: do not let any supposed religious leader, any man, or any group of men lead you away from what you know to be true. If it says so in the Bible, they must either line up with that or they are wrong.
What effect this had on the Gentile Christians is unclear, although they must have been perplexed that Peter would stop eating with them once these Judaizers arrived; who were these men who could intimidate an Apostle?
Principle: we must recognize that our actions may affect others, and apply accordingly when the circumstances call for it. Rm 14:7
Because teachers of BD have great influence on those who listen to them, they bear stricter accountability. Js 3:1
From Peters failure we can learn several things:

even men of great spiritual stature can commit serious transgressions, sometimes becoming guilty of the very errors they once condemned

faithfulness involves more than believing the right doctrine right doctrine without right application produces hypocrisy

truth is more important than outward harmony and peace Christian fellowship and unity are built on truth, never falsehood

situation ethics is ungodly ethics Gods Word, not a given human situation, determines what is right and wrong

falsehood is not to be ignored, regardless of the consequences that opposition may bring

we will all face the test of pleasing men or pleasing God, but even if you fail you can recover

Notice that, even though Barnabas was playing the hypocrite as well, Paul did not publicly redress him Peter, as an Apostle, was more culpable
Compare Pauls exhortation in 6:1 with this public remonstrance there is a time to show grace and a time to call on culpability.
Neither did Paul go behind Peters back or gossip about his failure he went straight to the source and did so in the presence of all.

Vs 14 But when I saw (strong adv avlla, "but" + sub con o[te "when" + A A I 1s ei=don "I saw") that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, (c.c. o[ti "that" + neg ptcl w/ P A I 3p ouvk ovrqopode,w "they are not walking straight; being straightforward" + prep w/ Ac F S pro,j h` avlh,qeia "to/about the truth" + G N S w/da to. euvagge,lion "of the gospel") I said to Cephas in the presence of all, ( A A I 1s ei=pon "I said" + D M S pr nm w/da o` Khfa/j "to Kephas" + prep w/ G M P e;mprosqen pa/j "before/in the presence of all") "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, ( con ptcl (1^st cl) eiv "if/since" (and its true) + pro 2s su, "you" + P A P N M S u`pa,rcw "living/existing" + N M S VIoudai/oj "a Jew" + P A I 2s za,w "live" + adv evqnikw/j "like a Gentile" + c.c. kai, "and" + neg ptcl ouvci, (emphatic neg) "in no way" + adv VIoudai?kw/j "like a Jew" ) how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (interr ptcl pw/j "how" + P A I 2s avnagka,zw "do you compel/insist" + Ac N P w/da to. e;qnoj "the Gentiles" + P A If VIoudai<zw "to live like a Jew" (under Judaistic religious observations) )

Paul did not correct Peter the moment he began to be swayed by the Judaizers.
He waited until he determined their motives and the result of their actions.
The Judaizers relied heavily on the credentials of the Jerusalem apostles, but:

Paul has proven his Apostleship came directly from God

he demonstrates that none of them were perfect and without failure

he is fully authorized to correct one of the "apostles before me" by virtue of his independent and equal status

Peter was an Apostle, but he had set a terrible example for the other Jewish believers who lived in Antioch.
The Greek word translated being straightforward is ovrqopodew and means literally, to walk with straight feet, or to walk a straight path.
Our straight path, the straight and narrow of Bible Doctrine, is contained in the 66 books of Scripture.
The reason for Pauls concern was not about personalities, feelings (of Peter or the Gentiles he had shunned), or dietary restrictions; it was Peters inconsistency with the truth he knew to be true. Ac 11; Rom 14:3
Peter and the rest of the Jews had strayed from the true path, "the truth of the gospel", that salvation does not lie in works, but in grace.
So the first question Paul asks is designed to point out Peters hypocrisy.
Pauls response is particularly enlightening for those of us living in a time when compromise of the truth in sound doctrine is prevalent.
We are fully authorized to tell someone who is refuting BD that they are wrong (Pr 26:5), as long as we avoid useless arguments. (Pr 26:4). Ec 3:1,7 cp Mt 7:6
Peters hypocrisy was having the long term effect of making others stumble, which is why Paul took such dramatic steps to correct it.
Pauls question is a First Class condition in the Greek: "If youlive like a Gentile (and you do)how do you compel the Gentiles (and you are)"
Peter had set aside the Mosaic dietary restrictions, and rightly so; now he sought to re-institute them so as to avoid the ire of the Judaizers.
If he had simply rejected unclean foods in consideration of the Judaizers weakness, fine; but he gave public assent to their legalistic viewpoint that Jews could not associate with Gentiles.
The word live like Jews is more fully translated live by the ancestral traditions of the religion of Judaism, especially since God had not prohibited eating with Gentiles, only unclean foods.
The communicator of BD has the responsibility to expose, refute, and correct false doctrine, to keep others from becoming contaminated. Ti 1:9
Peter had learned that the Gentiles had equal access to the saving grace of God, without restriction now he was placing the burden of lawkeeping upon them if they were to enjoy the Phase 2 benefits of Gods Plan.
The Judaizers had (grudgingly) accepted the fact that Gentiles could be saved (Ac 11:18), but they refused to let go of their self-righteous attitude that the Mosaic Law was an essential element of the Christian Way of Life.
Today we have the same threat presented by modern day legalists, who say implicitly or explicitly that if someone commits a certain sin (what that is varies), they are not really saved, or they can never please God again.
The same Judaizers who had brought pressure to bear on the believers in Antioch were working on the Galatian churches, to try to compel them to follow their traditions in order to keep their salvation.
Paul had quickly drawn the battle line in Antioch, now he tells his converts of this incident to show he is always ready to stand for the truth.
Principle: there are some tests that we will face time and again, and we must be ever ready to pass them whatever the individual circumstances.
Also implicit in this historical account is that Peter did not refute or argue with Paul after being publicly upbraided by him: the Judaizers claimed Paul and Peter disagreed on the substance of the gospel, why didnt Peter respond to Pauls gospel when he presented it in vss 16f?
Peter knew that Paul was right, that they proclaimed the same gospel, and he had been out of line by succumbing to the fear of the legalists. Ac 15:7-11
Paul has pointed out Peters hypocrisy, now he presents gospel in its pure form, to correct the thinking of Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews.

Vs 15 "We are Jews by nature (N P pro evgw ego "we" + N M P VIoudai/oj Ioudaios "Jews" + I F S fu,sij phusis "by nature" (the word has the idea of species) ) and not sinners from among the Gentiles;( c.c. kai, - kai "and" + neg ptcl ouvk ouk "not" + N M P a`martwlo,j hamartolos "sinners" + prep w G N P evk e;qnoj ek ethnos "out from nations/Gentiles" (source))

Vs 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law (sup con de, - de "and yet" + Pf A P N M P oi=da oida "knowing" + c.c o[ti - hoti "that" + N M S a;nqrwpoj anthropos "a man" + neg ptcl w/ P P I 3s ouv dikaio,w ou dikaioo "is not justified; is not made just" + prep w/ Ab N P evk e;rgon ek ergon "out from works" (source) + G M S no,moj nomos "of Law") but through faith in Christ Jesus, (super con w/ neg ptcl eva,n mh, - ean me "unless; except" + prep w/ G F S dia, pi,stij dia pistis "through faith" + G M S VIhsou/j Cristo,j Iesous Christos "to Jesus Christ" (obj gen)) even we have believed in Christ Jesus,( c.c. asc kai, - kai "even" + N P pro evgw, - ego "we" + A A I 1p pisteu,w pisteuo "believed" + prep w Ac M S eivj Cristo,j VIhsou/j eis Christos Iesous "unto Christ Jesus" (eivj indicates motion or direction; where the faith is directed)) so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; (sub con i[na hina "so that; for the purpose that" + A P S 1p dikaio,w dikaioo "we might be justified (Aorist indicates once for all time) + prep w/ Ab F S evk pi,stij ek pistis "out from faith" (source) + G M S Cristo,j Christos "to Christ" + c.c. w/ neg ptcl kai, ouvk kai ouk "and not" + prep w/ Ab N P evk e;rgon ek ergon "out from works (source)" + G M S no,moj nomos "of Law"(desc. gen)) since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. (c.c. o[ti hoti "because" + prep w Ab N P evk e;rgon ek ergon "out from works"(source) + G M S no,moj nomos "of Law" + N F S pa/j sa,rx pas sarx "all/every kind of flesh" + neg ptcl w/ F P I 3s ouv dikaio,w ou dikaioo "will not be justified" )

Vss 15 and 16 must be considered as a unit, since vs 16 completes the thought of vs 15.
Paul points out that Peter, Barnabas, the Jews at Antioch, and he were all born and raised under the Mosaic Law, and had followed its prescriptions and restrictions their whole lives.
"We" in the Greek is in the emphatic position, and is the subject of the sentence "we" as distinct from "them", the Gentiles.
Their relationship with the Gentiles now is different than it was then; they had been separated from the Gentile world by the Mosaic covenant, which forbade them from living as the Gentiles did. Dt 12:29-31
The Temple court was divided into sections, and Gentiles were not allowed into the same area as the male Jews (which taught that if one wanted to be close to God, one had to abide by His rules). Ac 21:28 "crying out, Men of Israel, come to our aid! This is the man who preaches to all men everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place."
The Gentiles had been separated from God by the barrier of the Mosaic Law before, and could not fulfill Gods will for their lives unless they placed themselves under it commandments and obligations. Ep 2:12-16
But now that barrier had been removed, so that there was no division between "Gods people" and the non-Jews.
"By nature" means that they were born into the household of Abraham, their genetics had determined that they would live under the rules given by God.
As Jews, they all knew what it was like to live under the requirements of the Law, to uphold and practice its ritual requirements, and conduct a way of life that was overtly more righteous than the Gentiles.
"Sinners from the Gentiles" does not imply that all Gentiles were sinners, but is a reference to proselytes, who joined the Jewish faith because of their positive volition. cp Heb 11:31; Dan 4
Paul, Peter, Barnabas, and the other Jews present were not converts to Judaism, they had grown up under Law with its requirements.
Neither is he saying that Jews do not sin. Rm 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
In Rm 2:12, Paul says "all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law.", so being a Jew or not did not make one more or less righteous than a Gentile, nor vice-versa.
The Jewish people of the day viewed Gentiles as worthless sinners, beyond redemption a view confirmed in their eyes by the general level of gross immorality among the Gentiles.
As today, when a society rejects the truth, that society will decay at an accelerated rate, becoming completely degenerate, until God in His +R destroys them. cp Gen 19:13; Jon 3:6-10; (and the ancient Greeks)
Paul affirms that the Gentiles did walk in gross immorality, giving themselves over to every kind of sensuality, or physical pleasure. Ep 4:17-19
And Peter agrees that the pagan Gentile culture was morally and spiritually bankrupt. 1Pe 4:1-4
When these Jewish people had realized that Jesus was Messiah, they repented from their previous thinking that works of the Mosaic Law could save them.
The verb for "knowing" ( oivda oida ) is in the Perfect tense : once they came to know this fact, the results continued they knew it then and still did.
The other Greek word for knowing is ginwskw ginosko , which refers primarily to the inception or progress in knowledge.
So Peter and the other Jewish believers had come to a full knowledge of the fact that man cannot be justified by works; there was no excuse for their actions in catering to the legalists in Antioch.
All the Jews present, including the Judaizers, had abandoned law-observance as a way of salvation, and had turned to that salvation offered by their Messiah now the Judaizers claimed one had to keep the Law to "stay saved".
Certain denominations today say that one is saved by faith (usually plus works), but works are necessary to maintain that salvation.
No man can work his way into Gods grace, since there is nothing we can do that is worthy of His attention, by our own merits.
The Greek word "justify" ( dikaiow dikaioo ) is a legal term, and means "to declare innocent or righteous" and is the opposite of "to condemn".
Legally, a judge cannot declare a condemned man innocent, or an innocent man guilty of breaking the law of which he is accused. Pr 17:15 "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD."
In the same way, God cannot make us "just" unless we are indeed innocent.
We become justified when we believe in His Son, not when we deserve it because of legal works or living a clean life.
The Passive voice of "justified" reinforces the fact that one does not justify oneself, but is declared righteous by another.
In this sense, justification does not express an ethical change; rather, it expresses a judicial action of God apart from human merit.
The total depravity of man before a just God means that unregenerate humanity is positionally as bad as they can be, whether they are experientially depraved or honorable.
A man who hates is a murderer, whether he ever takes a physical life, and a man who has impure thoughts about a woman is an adulterer, whether or not he ever commits physical adultery. Mt 5:22-28
We are not justified because we "clean up our act" and stop living lives of pagan sensuality, we are justified because we place our faith in the Savior.
Jesus made it clear that He did not have a message of salvation for those who considered themselves righteous before God, only for those who recognized their sinful condition. Mt 9:12-13, Lk 18:9-14
The Law shows us what sin is, but it has no provision to remove that sin. Rm 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
"Law" does not have the definite article, and therefore Paul is saying not only the works of the Mosaic Law cannot save, but there is no law anywhere that can. Rm 2:14; Gal 3:21
Certainly the Mosaic Law is in view, based on context, but the absence of the article allows the interpretation to include any principle or system of law, including the legalistic requirements the Judaizers were trying to force upon the Gentile believers.
The only way anyone, Jew or Gentile, can be saved is to direct their faith toward Jesus Christ, to believe He is the Savior. Ac 16:31
So Paul points out the obvious: Peter had believed in Jesus Christ for salvation, and there was therefore no need to live under the Mosaic Law.
If a man prefers to place himself under certain restrictions, he is free to do so (vegetarianism), but it is blasphemy to say that God requires certain works or restrictions to maintain salvation. Rm 14:2f or go to maturity. god has told us what is necessary, so do what he has told you to do.
So these Jews, having been raised under the Law, had placed their faith in Messiah instead the Gentiles were under no other obligations, either.
Though all men are inherently unjust before salvation, they are made as righteous as God Himself at the point of their saving faith. 2Co 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
Living under religious requirements gives no glory to God, because He paid the penalty for our sins Himself, as the only One capable of doing so; if there is anything we can do to merit salvation it means His work was not perfect. make no mistake, that is what legalists, then and now, are really saying that god couldnt do everything that was required, and we have to take up the slack.
The Greek word for "all" ( paj pas ) literally means "every kind or category".
It is not just the Gentiles that cannot be justified by works, the Jews could not be justified by fulfilling the requirements handed down by God.
David realized this same principle, that no man living is +R of his own accord. Ps 143:2 "And do not enter into judgment with Your servant, For in Your sight no man living is righteous."
Even if they were capable of fulfilling all the requirements, they were still in possession of an STA, and therefore unclean. Rom 3:10/Psa 14 "as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE"
Also, if they broke only one commandment, they were guilty of breaking them all; they would be less than perfect and not able to earn salvation. Js 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
Paul states three times that man cannot be justified by works, and states three times that man is justified by faith in Christ.
This shows the importance Paul placed on the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.
The three phrases increase in emphasis:

the first is general "a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus" "a man" is any man, anyone who will believe

the second is particular and personal "even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law" all the Jews present had placed their faith in Christ for salvation

the third statement is universal "by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." the literal Greek is "by works of law all flesh shall not be justified" all mankind, without exception

The Mosaic Law is, itself, "holy and just and good" since its Author is God, and Paul is not arguing against that; he is arguing against the thought that by keeping those commandments one can win acceptance with God.
Legalisms implicit and logical claim is that there is a work or works man can do that will make him as good as God, but see Isa 14:12 f

Vs 17 "But if, ( c.c. de, - de "but" + sub con eiv ei "if" (sets up a 1^st cl cond if, and its true) while seeking to be justified in Christ, (P A P N M P zhte,w zeteo "while seeking" + A P If dikaio,w dikaioo "to be justified + prep w/ L M S evn Cristo,j en Christos "in Christ" ) we ourselves have also been found sinners, (A P I 1p eu`ri,skw heurisko "we have been found" + N M P 1^st pro auvto,j autos "ourselves" + c.c. adjun kai, - kai "also" + N M P a`martwlo,j hamartolos "sinners") is Christ then a minister of sin? (sentential ptcl a=ra ara "then" (this ptcl expects a negative answer Paul is setting up a rhetorical question) + N M S Cristo,j Christos "Christ" + N M S dia,konoj diakonos "a minister" + G F S a`marti,a hamartia "of sin" ) May it never be! (neg ptcl, mh. + A D O 3s gi,nomai (mh. genoito me genoito)

By repudiating the Mosaic Law as a system of salvation, the Jews and Gentiles had both admitted they were sinners, although of different genetic stock.
Paul confesses as much; even though he had been blameless as to the righteousness found in the Law (Php 3:6), he recognized that that righteousness would never guarantee him entrance into the Plan of God.
Even if someone carried out every aspect of the Mosaic Law, this would not make him righteous, only Law-abiding. cp Lk 17:10 "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done"
The First Class condition in the Greek emphasizes this "if we have been found sinners (and we have), then"
The contemporary Jewish thinking was that all Gentiles were sinners, without hope of reformation unless they converted to Judaism; their conduct and lifestyle "proved" this to the overtly righteous Jews.
Paul points out that Jews were sinners, too, only of a different category, by using the construction "we ourselves" as a reference to Jewish Christians.
The Jews were on equal footing with the Gentiles when it came to salvation.
In the verses of this context, Paul clearly states the doctrine of justification by grace through faith, and defends it against the traditional (and common) objection that justification by faith alone leads to lawlessness.
In verse 15, Paul speaks of the status of natural-born Jews, who possessed the advantages of keeping the Law.
By seeking to be justified through faith in Christ, the Jews were admitting two things:

they were in the same category as the Gentiles, who were also justified by faith in Christ

the Law was utterly unable to provide justification, Ph 1 or Ph 2

But the legalistic Judaizers wanted to maintain circumcision and observance of the Law as part of salvation.
Their logic was: if failure to keep the Law is sin, and salvation by Law is impossible, then salvation is a sin. (a = b = c)
Therefore, Christ has become a minister or administrator, of sin, causing men to sin by rejecting the Law and its works. (cp promotes sin of the NIV)
Paul provides a very resounding response, with no room for equivocation.
The Greek construction translated "may it never be" is mh, genoito m genoito, and is a very emphatic negative, best translated by the English colloquialism "NO WAY!" or "ABSOLUTELY NOT!"
For another usage see Ro 6:1-2, where Paul again attacks the idea that because of grace we are free to sin.
Pauls logic is inescapable: if the Judaizers were right, Jesus was wrong.
To ascribe any sin, of any kind, to our Lord Jesus is blasphemy, it attacks the perfect nature of His +R.
God may test us in regard to an area of weakness, but He does not tempt anyone to sin; He always gives us an escape with the testing. Js 1:13 "Let no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted by God; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."
Since God is OmSc and OmPo, if He did try to draw us into sin, He would always succeed.
Pauls logic should have a sobering effect on modern day legalists, who distort Scripture in an attempt to support their legalism.
It is an established fact of BD that all men, even believers, sin. Ec 7:20 "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."
A review of the Gospels shows that Jesus was more critical of the legalistic, religious Pharisees than He was of the sinners and publicans. Jn 9:41 "Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, We see, your sin remains"
An example today would be the legalists who claim that drinking alcohol is a sin, no matter the amount or circumstances.

Jesus made good wine for the wedding guests of Cana Jn 2:9 (His first miracle)

if drinking is a sin, Jesus provided the opportunity for others to sin

therefore, Jesus is a minister of sin!

The logic is inescapable: if Jesus Christ gave Paul the wrong gospel, He is a minister of sin, something even the Judaizers would never claim.
It was Pauls strong desire for the Galatians to see that their legalism contradicted the Divine Viewpoint legalism is not something neutral, it is a great evil because it involves deviation from the straight and narrow.

Vs 18 "For if (sub con ga.r gar "for" + cond ptcl eiv ei "if" (1^st cl cond, "if, and suppose its true" debaters technique)) I rebuild (adv pa,lin palin "again" + P A I 1s oivkodome,w oikodomeo "I build" + Ac N P pro ou-toj houtos "these things" (not translated)) what I have once destroyed, (Ac N P rel pro o[j hos "what things" (a reference to keeping the commandments of the Law) + A A I 1s katalu,w kataluo "I destroyed" ) I prove myself to be a transgressor. (P A I 1s suni,sthmi sunistemi "I prove" + Ac M 1s pro evmautou/ - emautou "myself" + Ac M S paraba,thj parabates "a transgressor; one who breaks a law") (Greek word order "For if, what things I destroyed, I again build up these things, a transgressor I prove myself to be")

Vs 19 "For through the Law (sub con ga,r gar "for" + prep w/ G M S dia, no,moj dia nomos "through law") I died to the Law, (1s pro evgw, - ego "I" + A A I 1s avpoqnh,|skw apothnesko "I died" + D M S no,moj "to law") so that I might live to God. (sub con (purpose) i[na hina "so that; in order that" + A A S za,w zao "I might live" + D M S qeo,j theos "to God")

Paul shows that even if it were true that he was wrong, Jesus is still not a minister of sin.
There is no definite article accompanying law, as Paul includes every law-system into his faith it was not only the Mosaic Law that could not save, no Gentile legal system could have appropriated salvation either.
So much for the Santa Claus approach, "if you try to live right, God will save you, whatever you believe".
A legal system is necessary to prevent a permissive and decadent society, but it cannot make a man righteous, only law-abiding you cannot legislate morality, you can only discourage immorality.
In 1 Tim 1:8, Paul does encourage the proper use of the Law. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,"
Paul taught that the observation of law was not essential for salvation, but if he returned to his original position that it is valid for salvation, he would prove himself to be a transgressor of that system, since he had abrogated it. (circular reasoning)
He speaks in the 1^st person, but describes perfectly what Peter had done.
As a zealous Pharisee, Saul had taught that obedience to the Law was a prerequisite for salvation, but after his repentance/salvation, he had torn down the concept of righteous deeds being the means of relationship with God.
He proclaimed the gospel of grace, teaching that justification comes only through faith in Jesus Christ, and if he had declared valid what he correctly understood to be abrogated, he would have been a sinner. Ex 23:1 "You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness." ; Pro 6:16f
Anyone who, after having believed that in Christ alone is the forgiveness of sins, returned to some legal requirement to maintain that justification implied that Christ was of no benefit. 5:2 "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."
The salvation legalists would have us return to a system that was incapable of saving us in the first place.
If he had yielded to the pressure to have Titus circumcised, or if he had not opposed Peter, he would have in effect built up the Law again.
This is the same gospel he had presented to Peter, James, and John, and with which they had agreed; now Peter implicitly denied its efficacy by separating from the Gentiles based on some (false) legal requirement.
Paul pointed out his hypocrisy (v 14), showed why it was hypocrisy (v 15-16), answered the objection that faith in Jesus Christ promoted carnal living (v 17), and now carries the hypocrisy to its logical conclusion and gives the correct attitude towards legal requirements.
To say that salvation is by works of a law system, or that law-keeping is necessary to maintain salvation, or even that law-keeping is the basis for being righteous before God, is blasphemy it attributes the lack of perfection in salvation to God.
The Mosaic Law was designed to show man his need for salvation, never to provide salvation or justification. Rm 8:3-4
It is our faith that pleases God; the keeping of His commandments is the outcome of our righteousness, not the cause. Heb 11:1f
Indeed, the Mosaic Law showed man what God considered to be sin, but in so doing it brought sin and death with it. Rm 7:13
The contract, or covenant, of the Mosaic Law was valid as long as those who entered into it (God on the one side and the Jews on the other) were alive. Ex 19:8; Dt 12:1
By dying through the commandment, Paul was now released from the obligation to keep the Law, and could therefore live to God. (CWL) Rm 7:1-4
The Subjunctive mood realizes the potential of Pauls living to God, it was not guaranteed, but at last it was possible.
Now that we have been removed from our enslavement to sin, we have the opportunity to live our lives as God intends. Rm 6:14 "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace." but of course, that means you have to be here consistently to learn how he intends us to live.

Vs 20 "I have been crucified with Christ;(Pf P I 1s sustauro,w sustauroo "I have been crucified with" + D M S Cristo,j Christos "Christ") and it is no longer I who live, (c.c. de, - de "and yet" + adv ouvke,ti ouketi "no longer" + N 1s pro evgw, - ego "I myself" + P A I 1s za,w zao "I am living" (similar in emphasis to a 2^nd person pronoun on an imperitive, not just "go" but "YOU go") but Christ lives in me; (sup con de, "but" + N M S Cristo,j "Christ" + P A I 3s za,w "lives" + prep w/ L 1s pro evn evgw, "in me") and the life which I now live in the flesh (sub con de, "and yet" + Ac N S rel pro o[j hos "that which" + P A I 1s za,w "I live" + adv nu/n nun "now" + prep w/L F S evn sa,rx en sarx "in flesh") I live by faith in the Son of God, ( P A I 1s za,w "I live" + prep w/ I F S evn pi,stij en pistis "by faith" + I F S d.a. h` - he "the one" (refers to faith) + G M S w/d.a. o` ui`o,j ho huios "to the Son" (obj gen) + G M S w/d.a. o` qeo,j ho theos "of the God" (God the Father)) who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (A A P G M S w/d.a. o` avgapa,w ho agapao "the One having loved" + Ac 1s pro evgw, "me" + c.c. kai, "and" + A A P G M S paradi,dwmi - paradidomi "having given" + Ac M 3s pro e`autou/ - heautou "Himself" + prep w/G 1s pro u`pe,r evgw, - huper ego "for me; on my behalf")

"Crucified" is in the Perfect tense, indicating a past action that still had existing results Paul had been co-crucified with Christ.
The time of that co-crucifixion is the point of salvation, when we are justified, imputed +R and EL, and partake of the Divine nature . 2Pe 1:4
The Passive voice indicates it was not Paul that sought out this co-crucifixion, it was accomplished by an outside Agent the Holy Spirit. 1Cor 12:13 "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit"
Obviously, he had not been physically on the cross at the same time as was Jesus, but in a very real spiritual sense he had been united with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection.
The verb sustauro,w sustauroo occurs 5x, three in connection with the two criminals physically crucified at the same time and place as Jesus, the other 2x are used figuratively for a believers death to sin and its penalty. Mt 27:44; Mk 15:32; Jn 19:32; Rm 6:6; Gal 2:19
This is known as Retroactive Positional Truth: everyone who believes in Christ is baptized, or identified, into His death.
Crucifixion was the worst form of capital punishment the Romans could derive the victim was literally tortured to death.
Once that death was (finally) achieved, law held no more punishment for the victim he was dead, after all.
The figure is deliberately bold, designed to emphasize the finality of the death which has put an end to the old order, and placed a barrier between it and the new life in Christ.
We, at the point of salvation, became sharers in the two deaths of Christ on the cross:

His separation from God, with the resultant penalty for sins Mt 27:46 "About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

His physical death, which prepared the way for His physical resurrection Jn 19:30b "and He bowed His head and gave up His spirit" cp vs 33

In Rm 6:6 the reference is to "our old self" (sinful, unsaved, STA), which was "crucified with Him." (put to death in relation to control of our lives). d to sin
Because our sins were paid for and removed, and because we are positionally in Christ, we are guaranteed that we will have no sin nature in Ph3.
The sins of each person were poured out on Christ and judged. 1Jn 2:2 "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
During the three hours of judgement, all the sins of all mankind, for all time, were imputed to Christ, and the penalty for those sins was executed on Him; it is because of this that our sins are no longer an issue regarding justification and salvation. 1Pe 2:24 "and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed."
Since we share in His death, it follows that we were also buried and resurrected with Him positionally His history becomes a part of our history.

Christs burial is a part of the gospel: His burial is proof that He died physically, otherwise His resurrection would be subject to dispute. 1Co 15:3-4 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

baptism into His burial means we share the benefits of that physical death: our last enemy has been conquered. cp 1Co 15:55 "O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting?"

by His resurrection, we are guaranteed that death has no permanent hold on us: we can look forward to living even if we die physically. 1Th 4:13f

This is Retroactive Positional Truth because we have placed ourselves "in Him", we share His past victories, not literally, but in the sense of our position in Him. Rm 6:3f
When He died under the Law, He passed out of the realm where the Law, in its legal sense, had any control over Him; since we died with Him, the Law has no control over us. v 19
This produced a change in Paul; he changed from living according to his own desires trying to please God on his own terms and began to live as God would have him do so.
Principle: living under any religious/legalistic system in an attempt to gain acceptance with God, actually prevents one from living his life for God.
He goes on to say "it is no longer I who live", referring to his pre-salvation life, when he thought he was doing Gods will, but was in fact living apart from the will of God.
"Christ lives in me" is a reference to the BD in his soul, the Word of God which renews us. Jn 14:20; 15:7
The indwelling of Christ must be distinguished from the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit it is not automatic like the I{F}HS, but is a gradual process which comes to reality when we have BD in our souls, which process is accomplished via FHS.
"Lives" is the Present Active Indicative, meaning that it is that very life Paul presently experiences at the time of writing: "continues to live"
This is Current Positional Truth because we shared in His past victories, we now share in His current exalted, sinless state. Ep 2:5-6 "even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"
Positional Truth must be distinguished from Experiential Truth.

we are "in Christ" and there is no sin in Him 1Jn 3:5 "You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin"

as fallible humans beset with the sin nature, we will experience sin (which blocks our access to God) cp 2Th 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

Even though we may be under the temporal death of carnality, we are always counted as alive because we are "in Christ", who cannot die. Rm 8:9-11
The adjusted believer no longer lives an independent life of his own, but a life of believing dependence on the Son of God. cp 2Co 5:7 "for we walk by faith, not by sight"
The true Christian Way of Life is not so much the Christian living for Christ as it is Christ living through the believer; this is only possible through the application of BD. 1Co 2:16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."
"Flesh" in this verse is not a reference to the Sin Nature, but to Pauls physical existence as a post-salvation believer.
One of the greatest benefits that we, as believers and children of God, experience is that of being given the ability to please God in this life and that not of our own merit (for we would surely fail), but by the exercise of faith directed towards Him and His Word.
One of the primary motivations of the CWL is a response to the love displayed in the death of the Son of God; both the love of God the Father (Jn 3:16), and the love God the Son has for us. 1 Jn. 3:16 "We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."
This love is not based on what we are (we are worthless, how could a perfect Being love a sinful human?), but is based on His desire to redeem us from slavery. 1Jo 4:10 "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Jesus Christ went to the cross in obedience to the will of God the Father, (Lk 22:42 "not My will but Yours"), but He also did it out of maximum love for us and all mankind. Jn 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
Hence, "God in Christ was reconciling the world to Himself" (2Co 5:19) portrays the active role both Father and Son took in the sacrifice.
The foundation of our faith is to orient to the work of Christ on the cross on our behalf; the continuation of our faith is to follow the precepts of BD and allow Him to live in our lives.

Vs 21 "I do not nullify the grace of God,( neg ptcl ouv ou w/ P A I 1s avqete,w atheteo "I do not nullify/make invalid" + Ac F S h` ca,rij he charis "the grace" + G M S w/ d.a. o` qeo,j ho theos "of the God" w/d.a. a reference to GF)) for if righteousness comes through the Law, (sub con ga,r gar "for" + con ptcl eiv "if" (debaters 1^st cl) + N F S dikaiosu,nh dikaiosune "righteousness" + prep w/ G M S dia, no,moj dia nomos "through law" ) then Christ died needlessly." ( inferential ptcl a;ra ara "then" + N M S Cristo.j "Christ" + A A I 3s avpoqnh,|skw apothnesko "died" + adv dwrea,n dorean "for nothing; needlessly")

This is the logical conclusion of the Judaizers false gospel : if it is necessary to observe legal requirements in order to stay saved, then Christs death was without value.
The Greek word avqetew athete "to nullify" was used to describe loans that had been cancelled, and of certain officials who were rejected because they were unfit or incapable of doing their job, and of grain that had been rejected by the inspector as being unfit for food.
To believe that ritualistic works can bring one favor before God, either in Ph1 or Ph2, is to deny the efficacy of our Saviors work on the cross.
The full definition of "grace" is this: all that God has done to bring fallen and sinful man into a just, perfect, and eternal relationship with Himself, without compromising His own perfect character, and totally apart from human merit or works.
It is the essence of grace that God gives people what they have not worked for. Rm 4:1-5
Legalism and grace are mutually exclusive; either we are saved by grace or we must rely on our own efforts to achieve the +R of God.
This applies to the argument of the legalists then (observe the Mosaic Law) as well as those of today (water baptism).
This applies to Ph2 as well: there are some who teach that in order to maintain Gods approval you cannot gamble, dance, drink, smoke, go to movies, wear jewelry, go swimming with members of the opposite sex, ad nauseum, as if God cares about physical activities over spiritual issues.
If their claim is true, Jesus should have said "It is partially finished".
The fact that certain physical activities are sinful does not mean all activities are sinful. Rm 14:14 "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Certain activities will bring Divine Discipline into our lives and should be avoided, but those sins are not to be determined by man but by the WOG. Ec 7:17 "Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time?"
The only way to gain Gods approval is to be in Christ (salv), maintain FHS, and "come to a knowledge of the truth" 1Ti 2:3-4
Through the intake of Gods word Christ is formed in us; we think His viewpoint and act according to His viewpoint and He gets the ultimate credit.
Peters actions gave tacit approval to this blasphemy, which was why Paul attacked him so mercilessly and before the entire congregation.
Peter and the Judaizers were implicitly condemning their Lord as a failure, by making His substitutionary death invalid before God and man.
If we could have been declared +R by keeping the Law, then there would have been no need for Him to have suffered on our behalf. cp 3:21
So Paul says indirectly here what he said directly in v 16 justification/+R does not come by works of law.
"Righteousness" is substituted for "justification", since we receive +R immediately after we are declared innocent via our faith in Christ.
There is no point in trying to work for something you cannot earn or merit or deserve; this is exactly what the Judaizers were proposing.
That Christ died for sins is a fact that even his opponents agreed to; what they denied was the full efficacy of that death.
Their implicit claim was that there was already an instrument in place to provide justification, i.e. the Law.
Paul is a clear, consistent, logical thinker who rejects the necessity of Christs death if +R comes via merit/law/works.
The Greek word avra ara "then" is used to introduce a conclusion (the only logical conclusion that can be reached): if there is a system of legal requirements that man can observe and gain +R, Christ died gratuitously and for no reason.
Application: take any doctrinal claim to its logical conclusion before accepting it as Truth.
His opponents claimed that freedom from law meant freedom to sin, but he repudiates that charge in Rm 6:15 "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!"
Legalism, whether Ph1 or Ph2, denies the full glory that should be given to God, since He alone is capable of saving us and keeping us saved.