Galatians 2: The Gospel Recognized, the Rebuke at Antioch, and Justification by Faith
Galatians 2:1–10: the gospel recognized in Jerusalem
Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I spoke privately to those recognized as leaders, for fear that I was running or had already run in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But as for the highly esteemed—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—those leaders added nothing to me. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles. And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (BSB)
Says The chapter opens, “Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas”. “I took Titus along also”. The Greek is Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν (Epeita dia dekatessarōn etōn, “then after fourteen years”); διά with the genitive marks the interval, which the BSB gives as “later.” The verb is πάλιν ἀνέβην (palin anebēn, “I went up again”). He went “in response to a revelation”, κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν (kata apokalypsin, “in accordance with a revelation”), and “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles”. He spoke privately “to those recognized as leaders”, “for fear that I was running or had already run in vain”. The one participle behind “recognized as leaders,” and later “highly esteemed” and “reputed to be pillars,” is τοῖς δοκοῦσιν (tois dokousin, “to those reputed”). The wording of 2:1–2 is treated in I went up by revelation (2:1–2) and is not taken up again here. The visit continues the claim of 1:11–12, already treated in Not according to man, but through revelation (1:11–12) and The gospel by revelation, and is not restated from those notes. The first Jerusalem stay of 1:18–24 is pointed to in The first visit and Acts and Jerusalem, Cephas and James, and Syria and Cilicia (1:18–24).
Implies The visit is framed by revelation, not by a summons from the leaders. Paul lays his gospel before them without receiving it from them. Because he names Barnabas and Titus as his companions, and because he names the fear that he might have run in vain, the journey is presented as a real event in his life, open to check.
Uncertain Which visit in Acts 2:1–10 describes is read two ways by the commentators cited here, and no verdict is given here. Wesley writes, “This seems to be the Journey mentioned Acts xv.” Lightfoot speaks of “the latter visit (supposing it to be the same with that of Acts xv.)” Calvin instead takes the journey when, “in company with Barnabas, he brought the charitable contributions of the Greek and Asiatic Churches”, and writes, “My belief that this second journey is referred to in the present passage” He adds that “this happened before he was sent to Jerusalem by the Churches to settle the dispute” Luther writes, “I do not think that this is the contention which Luke speaketh of in the fifteenth of the Acts” Ramsay writes that “there lurks no identification with any visit described by Luke” These are their readings; they are set out more fully in The second visit to Jerusalem and Acts (2:1–10). The two Acts journeys are stated from the BSB, without a choice between them, in Gal 2:1 → Acts 15:1–2 and Gal 2:1 → Acts 11:29–30. What the text itself states is simpler: after fourteen years he went up again, with Barnabas and Titus, in accordance with a revelation, and set his gospel before those of repute.
Uncertain From what point the fourteen years are counted is likewise open. Calvin holds that they are to be reckoned “not from one journey to another”, and counts from the conversion. Ramsay writes of “the fourteenth year from the epoch-making event”, and he too counts from the conversion. Lightfoot asks whether they are to be counted from the conversion, or “from the visit to Jerusalem just recorded?”, and leans to the visit just recorded. Burton, granting that “it is impossible to determine with certainty which view is correct”, also leans to counting from the first visit. Luther writes, “after fourteen years (besides those wherein he had preached in Damascus and Arabia) goeth up again to Jerusalem”, a guarded reading from the first visit. These are their readings; no verdict is given here. The historical note names the same holders and is not restated beyond this summary.
Says “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek”. The sentence of 2:4 begins διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους (dia de tous pareisaktous pseudadelphous, “but because of the false brothers secretly brought in”) and breaks off; the BSB supplies “This issue arose because”. “some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us”. In 2:5 the printed text has οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ (hois oude pros hōran eixamen tē hypotagē, “to whom we did not yield in subjection even for an hour”). The BSB “We did not give in to them for a moment” leaves τῇ ὑποταγῇ unrendered. The purpose is that “the truth of the gospel would remain with you”. Some witnesses, chiefly Western, lack οἷς οὐδέ, so that the sentence would say they yielded for an hour; SBLGNT, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus all print the words. The evidence and the decision are in οἷς οὐδέ / —. The wording is treated in Titus and the false brothers (2:3–5); the background in Titus, circumcision, and the false brothers (2:3–5).
Implies Because Titus, a Greek, was with Paul in Jerusalem and was not compelled, and because Paul did not yield so that the truth of the gospel would remain, the text ties the demand for circumcision to the gospel itself.
Uncertain How 2:3–5 is to be read is set out from its holders here, with no verdict. Burton writes that “not even Titus, who was there on the ground at the time, and to whom the demand would first of all apply, was circumcised” Lightfoot asks, “Was Titus circumcised or was he not?” and answers, “On the whole, the following reasons seem to decide for the negative.” Calvin writes, “I prefer the second interpretation, that Paul, having discovered the snares laid for him, determined not to circumcise Titus.” Chrysostom writes, “nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised” Wesley writes, “neither was Titus who was with me—when I conversed with them—compelled to be circumcised” and sets the two cases apart: “Timothy, (Acts xvi. 3.) because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false Brethren” These are their readings.
Says The sentence of 2:6 begins from τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (tōn dokountōn einai ti, “those reputed to be something”) and breaks off; the parenthesis is “God does not show favoritism”, in the Greek πρόσωπον θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει (prosōpon theos anthrōpou ou lambanei, “God does not receive a man’s face”). It resumes, “those leaders added nothing to me”. They saw that he had been entrusted with the gospel τῆς ἀκροβυστίας (tēs akrobystias, “of the uncircumcision”), the BSB’s “to the uncircumcised”, just as Peter had been entrusted with that of the circumcision. The name in 2:7–8 is Πέτρος in every edition compared here. In 2:8 the first limb has εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς; the second has only εἰς τὰ ἔθνη (eis ta ethnē, “to the Gentiles”), and the BSB supplies “my apostleship.” “And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John”—“those reputed to be pillars”—“gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship”. The Greek has δεξιὰς (dexias, “right hands”), plural. “They only asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do”. The wording is treated in Those of repute and the right hand of fellowship (2:6–9); the pillars and the poor in The pillars and the poor (2:7–10). Ramsay writes, “Paul consulted the three leaders privately and apart, not in public council” That comment belongs with the private meeting of 2:2, not as a decision on the pillars.
Implies Because the leaders added nothing and gave the right hand of fellowship on recognizing the grace given to him, the text presents his gospel as unaltered by them. The poor are their one request. Paul wrote the letter; the persons named (Barnabas, Titus, James, Cephas, John, and the poor) and the events he recounts are real.
Galatians 2:11–14: Cephas opposed at Antioch
When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (BSB)
Says The scene then shifts. “When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned”. The printed text has Κηφᾶς (Kēphas, “Cephas”) at 2:11 and Κηφᾷ at 2:14; the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus have Πέτρος and Πέτρῳ. SBLGNT, Westcott–Hort, Tregelles, and NA28 print Cephas. Both names denote the same apostle; 2:7–8 have already used Πέτρος in every edition compared here, and Paul had used Κηφᾶς at 1:18 in the printed text (see Κηφᾶν / Πέτρον and Κηφᾶς, Κηφᾷ / Πέτρος, Πέτρῳ (2:11, 14)). “For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles”. The printed verb for their arrival is ἦλθον (ēlthon, “they came”); Tregelles prints ἦλθεν, “he came.” SBLGNT, Westcott–Hort, NA28, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print the plural. The evidence is in ἦλθον / ἦλθεν. Then “he began to draw back and separate himself, for fear of those in the circumcision group” (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς (tous ek peritomēs, “those of the circumcision”)). In 2:13 the rest joined him; the Greek order is Barnabas first, then “their” hypocrisy (Βαρναβᾶς (Barnabas, “Barnabas”) … αὐτῶν). The BSB reorders this as “by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray”. “When I saw that they were not walking in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all”, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” The verb is Ἰουδαΐζειν (Ioudaizein, “to live like Jews”); the standard is ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς (orthopodousin pros, “walking straight toward”) the truth of the gospel. The wording is treated in He drew back, and the hypocrisy (2:11–13) and Walking straight, and living like a Jew (2:14). The meals and the men from James are treated in Antioch: table fellowship and the men from James (2:11–14). Acts 10:28 is pointed to in Gal 2:12 → Acts 10:28.
Implies Because Cephas ate with the Gentiles until the men came and then withdrew for fear, the text presents his withdrawal as a change of conduct, which Paul opposed openly. The charge, as the text itself gives it, is inconsistency joined to compulsion: one who lives in Gentile fashion was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Paul wrote this; Cephas, Barnabas, the men from James, and the incident at Antioch are presented as real.
Uncertain How the rebuke is to be read is set out from its holders here, with no verdict. Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and Lightfoot read a real fault. Calvin writes, “Augustine is therefore right in asserting, that this was no previously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed the sinful and unseasonable dissimulation of Peter” Luther writes, “But Peter offended through dissimulation” and, “and yet was it not done by malice or ignorance, but by occasion and fear only.” Wesley gives the grounds as “for fear of man, ver. 12. for Dissimulation, ver. 13. and for not walking uprightly, ver. 14.” Lightfoot, in paraphrase, writes, “I openly rebuked the leading Apostle of the Circumcision, for his conduct condemned itself.” and, “But certain persons arrived from James, and he timidly withdrew himself.” Chrysostom, by contrast, holds that Peter acted “both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him”, and that “this apparent contest was much to their advantage” Calvin reports the reading “given by Jerome and Chrysostom, who represent the whole transaction as a feigned debate, which the apostles had previously arranged to take place in presence of the people.” Luther reports that Jerome “thinketh this to be but a feigned reprehension of Paul” These are their readings; they are set out also in Early readings of Galatians 2: the visit, Cephas, and Antioch. No verdict is given here.
Uncertain How the men “from James” stood to James is also open. Burton writes that Paul “designates them as representing James, who was of the mediating party” Lightfoot is more guarded: “Of these nothing more can safely be inferred than that they belonged to the Church of Jerusalem. It is not improbable however, that they came invested with some powers from James which they abused.” These are their readings; no verdict is given here.
Uncertain Eusebius reports that Clement “says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter” That is a reported early reading, attributed here with no verdict. The text itself names Peter in 2:7–8 and Cephas, a pillar with James and John, in 2:9, and then says that when Cephas came to Antioch Paul opposed him to his face (2:11). Those are the letter’s own names. Eusebius also says that James was the one “to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles” That comment belongs with James’s place in Jerusalem, not as a decision on the Cephas of 2:11.
Uncertain Where Paul’s words to Cephas end is not marked in the Greek. The BSB closes the quotation at the end of 2:14. Burton writes, “How much of what follows was actually uttered on this occasion it is impossible to say with certainty.” He also writes that “it is improbable that he intends to limit his report of his words on that occasion to a single sentence” Calvin, on 2:17, writes, “We must take care not to connect this verse with the preceding one, as if it were a part of the speech addressed to Peter” and adds, “but let every one form his own opinion.” These are their readings; no verdict is given here. The question is stated, not resolved. What 2:14 itself states does not depend on how far the address runs: the charge is the one already quoted.
Galatians 2:15–21: justified by faith, not by works of the law
We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile “sinners” know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, does that make Christ a minister of sin? Certainly not! If I rebuild what I have already torn down, I prove myself to be a lawbreaker. For through the law I 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. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (BSB)
Says The next verses take up justification. “We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile” “sinners”—the quotation marks are the BSB’s. They “know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”. The Greek is οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ou dikaioutai anthrōpos ex ergōn nomou ean mē dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou, “a man is not justified by works of the law if not through faith of Jesus Christ”). ἐὰν μή is literally “if not”; the BSB renders it “but.” The genitive after πίστις is not itself the preposition “in.” Then “So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus”, “that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law”. The verb is plain: εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν (eis Christon Iēsoun episteusamen, “we believed in Christ Jesus”). The verse closes that by works of the law πᾶσα σάρξ (pasa sarx, “all flesh”) will not be justified, the BSB’s “no one will be justified”. The wording is treated in Justified not by works of the law (2:15–16) and Faith of Christ (2:16, 20). The echo in Psalm 143:2 is stated from the BSB in Gal 2:16 → Ps 143:2; no Greek Old Testament form is claimed. On δικαιόω and νόμος, see δικαιόω and νόμος. The Romans 3 notes on works of the law, on πίστις Χριστοῦ, and on boasting excluded are pointed to and are not taken up again: ὑπόδικος … τῷ θεῷ; ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (3:22; cf. 3:26), δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει … χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου; ἐκ πίστεως / διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Jews and Greeks all under sin, and the law's verdict (Romans 3:9–20), Faith in Jesus Christ or the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22, 26), Boasting excluded, justification by faith apart from works of the law, the one God, and the law upheld (Romans 3:27–31), 'Works of the law' (3:20, 28) and 4QMMT, and 'From faith to faith' and Paul's use of Habakkuk 2:4 (Romans 1:17).
Implies The verse states three times that a person is justified through faith and not by works of the law, and it states as fact that “we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus.” That confession is the text’s own, not a later inference.
Uncertain What “works of the law” are is not defined in the verse. Calvin, Luther, and Wesley read the phrase of all that the law requires. Calvin writes that Paul “enters into a controversy about the whole law, although the arguments of the false apostles were confined wholly to ceremonies” Luther writes, “The work of the law, then, according to Paul, signifieth the work of the whole law, whether it be judicial, ceremonial, or moral.” Wesley writes, “Not even of the Moral, much less the Ceremonial Law” Burton (p. 120) takes the phrase of “deeds of obedience to formal statutes done in the legalistic spirit”. These are their readings; no verdict is given here.
Uncertain The genitive after πίστις in 2:16 and 2:20 is, as grammar, open to more than one reading; the BSB renders it “faith in” each time. Burton holds that it should “be taken as an objective genitive, expressing substantially the same relation to πίστις which is expressed after the verb by εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.” Wesley writes, “by the faith of Jesus Christ, that is, by faith in him.” Lightfoot, in paraphrase, speaks of “that faith in Jesus Christ was the only means of justification” These are their readings; no verdict is given here. The language note states the grammar and names the same holders; they are not restated beyond this summary. On πίστις, see πίστις.
Says “But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, does that make Christ a minister of sin? Certainly not!” The answer is μὴ γένοιτο (mē genoito, “may it not be”). “If I rebuild what I have already torn down, I prove myself to be a lawbreaker”. The wording is treated in A minister of sin, and a transgressor (2:17–18).
Implies The refusal denies that Christ serves sin. The fault, if there is one, lies in rebuilding what was torn down, not in seeking to be justified in Christ. Verse 18 turns from “we” to “I,” and so applies the point to the speaker himself.
Says “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live to God”. The Greek is διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω (dia nomou nomō apethanon hina theō zēsō, “through the law I died to the law, that I might live to God”). In 2:20 (SBLGNT 2:19) the next clause is Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι (Christō synestaurōmai, “I have been crucified with Christ”), which the BSB, with the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus, opens 2:20 with. Then “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”. “The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me”. “In the body” renders ἐν σαρκί (en sarki, “in the flesh”). The printed Greek of the last phrase is τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (tou huiou tou theou, “of the Son of God”); Tregelles prints θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ. SBLGNT, Westcott–Hort, NA28, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print “of the Son of God.” Manuscript evidence for this unit is not given in the textual note for this chapter; the editions are. The evidence is in υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ / θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ. On either reading, the participles name the one who loved him and gave himself up for him. That gift is of a piece with 1:4, already treated in He gave himself for our sins, and is not taken up again from that note. Romans 6:6 is pointed to in Gal 2:20 → Rom 6:6. The wording is treated in Died to the law, crucified with Christ (2:19–21). On συσταυρόω and δικαιοσύνη, see συσταυρόω and δικαιοσύνη. The earlier notes on union with Christ and on dying to the law, in Baptism and union with Christ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5) and Released from the law by a death: died to the law through the body of Christ (Romans 7:1–6), are pointed to and are not taken up again.
Implies The believer’s life now is Christ’s life in him, grounded in union with Christ in His death and life. Christ’s love is personal, “for me,” as 1:4 had said “for our sins.”
Uncertain How Paul died to the law “through the law” is not explained in the verse. Burton, Calvin, Lightfoot, and Wesley read it of the law’s convicting work, which drives a person to Christ. Burton writes that the law “had by his experience under it taught him his own inability to meet its spiritual requirements and its own inability to make him righteous, and thus led him finally to abandon it and to seek salvation in Christ.” Calvin writes of “the law which forces us to die to itself; for it threatens our destruction, leaves us nothing but despair, and thus drives us away from trusting to the law.” Lightfoot writes, “it makes them sinners, and it punishes them for being so.” and, “They have no choice but to throw off the bondage of the law, for the law itself has driven them to this. They find the deliverance, which they seek, in Christ.” Wesley writes, “For I through the law—applied by the Spirit to my heart, and deeply convincing me of my utter Sinfulness and Helplessness—am dead to the law—to all hope of Justification from it” Chrysostom writes that “the Law itself has taught me no longer to obey itself” These are their readings; no verdict is given here.
Says The chapter closes, “I do not set aside the grace of God”. “For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing”. The last word is δωρεὰν (dōrean, “for nothing”). If righteousness were through the law, Christ’s death would be for nothing; the grace of God and that death stand or fall together. The claim belongs with 2:16 and 2:20: a person is justified not by works of the law but through faith, and the life now lived is the life of the Son who gave himself. Galatians 3:1 is context only and is not taken up here.
Justified by faith, not by works of the law
Not setting aside the grace of God
Minor variants
Says The printed Greek of this chapter is SBLGNT throughout. English verse numbers follow that text, with one division difference: SBLGNT ends 2:19 with Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι, which the BSB, with the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus, opens 2:20 with. The first time that clause is given above, it is marked “2:20 (SBLGNT 2:19).” Four units have their own textual notes: οἷς οὐδέ at 2:5 (οἷς οὐδέ / —), Κηφᾶς / Πέτρος at 2:11 and 2:14 (Κηφᾶς, Κηφᾷ / Πέτρος, Πέτρῳ (2:11, 14)), ἦλθον / ἦλθεν at 2:12 (ἦλθον / ἦλθεν), and υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ / θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ at 2:20 (υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ / θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ). Significant Byzantine and Textus Receptus alternatives are noted there, with brief evidence. Other units that do not change the sense share this box only, and are not discussed elsewhere. At 2:4 SBLGNT, Westcott–Hort, Tregelles, and NA28 print καταδουλώσουσιν; the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus print καταδουλώσωνται. At 2:6 SBLGNT, Tregelles, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print θεός; Westcott–Hort and NA28 print ὁ θεός. At 2:9 the Byzantine text adds μέν after ἡμεῖς; the Textus Receptus does not. At 2:13 SBLGNT, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print καί before οἱ λοιποί. At 2:14 SBLGNT prints ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς; the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus print ἐθνικῶς ζῇς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς. SBLGNT, Westcott–Hort, Tregelles, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print οὐκ there; NA28 prints οὐχί. SBLGNT prints πῶς; the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus print τί. At 2:16 SBLGNT prints δέ after εἰδότες, which the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus lack; SBLGNT, NA28, the Byzantine text, and the Textus Receptus print Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Westcott–Hort and Tregelles Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; SBLGNT prints ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται, the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus διότι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐξ ἔργων νόμου. At 2:18 SBLGNT prints συνιστάνω; the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus print συνίστημι. None of these lines changes what the verse says.