The Legal Significance of Christ’s Risen Life: Union with Christ and Justification in Galatians 2.17-20

Introduction

In a 2006 article, Scott Shauf notes that many who have devoted sustained attention to Gal. 2.20 have done so without addressing how this verse relates to the preceding discussion of justification, choosing instead to associate it with a broader concept of mysticism in Paul or (in the heyday of the Religiongeschichtliche Schule) a possible Gnostic background. ¹ It is hardly surprising that, after navigating the difficult logic of Gal. 2.17-18, many interpreters are fatigued with this type of analysis and do not continue a tight tracing of the flow of thought into Gal. 2.19-20. This, however, is unfortunate. In Gal. 2.17, Paul speaks of seeking to be ‘justified in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ)’, and then, in 2.19-20, he describes himself as ‘crucified with Christ’ and claims that ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’. The nearness of a phrase typically taken to imply union with or participation in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ) to a description of central aspects of Paul’s relationship to Christ suggests that explaining their interrelationship is an important interpretive task. As Beverly Gaventa writes,

The challenge is not simply how to explicate each set of statements on its own, the first regarding the means of justification (or rectification), and the second regarding Paul’s death and life in Christ; the challenge includes that of accounting for these two sets of statements in relation to each other. (Gaventa 2014: 187-88)

The present article will attempt to address this challenge by highlighting evidence in favor of an older interpretation of Gal. 2.20 that is often neglected by contemporary scholars.

Typical Strategies for Relating Galatians 2.17 and 2.19-20

Contemporary interpreters who address the relationship between Gal. 2.17 and 2.19-20 typically adopt one of three approaches.

First, some deny that Gal. 2.17 refers to union with Christ, thereby avoiding any direct association with the description of Paul’s relation to Christ in 2.19-20. For example, several scholars suggest that the participial phrase ‘seeking to be justified in Christ’ is simply a shorthand reference to the explanation of justification in the previous verse. ² Others claim that Paul’s use of the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (2.17) is instrumental and refers to justification ‘by Christ’ or ‘through Christ’, not ‘in Christ’. ³ Some supporting this latter interpretation propose that the phrase ‘justified by the law (ἐν νομῷ)’ in 3.11 is a grammatical parallel demonstrating the instrumental significance of the preposition ἐν when paired with the verb διακιόω. ⁴

Second, others argue that in Gal. 2.17-20 Paul reveals the expansive meaning he assigns to the verb δικαιόω. In the landmark study credited with sparking the New Perspective on Paul, E.P. Sanders writes, ‘The normally juristic, forensic or ethical language of righteousness is forced to bear the meaning of “life by participation in the body of Christ”’ (1977: 504). Several other recent interpreters make similar claims. According to Martinus C. de Boer (2005: 212-15), Gal. 2.19-20 demonstrates that Paul understands justification to entail liberation from the enslaving powers of sin and the law, thereby departing from the ordinary Jewish interpretation of ‘justification’ language (i.e., the eschatological declaration of the righteousness of those who observe the law). Shauf interprets the phrase ‘Christ lives in me’ as a reference to the Spirit’s indwelling of Paul, concluding that Paul understands justification to include the gift of the Holy Spirit. ⁵ Michael J. Gorman claims that Gal. 2.19-20 defines justification as co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Christ (and therefore as participatory and transformative), ⁶ while Douglas A. Campbell suggests that these verses lend support to his construal of justification as an act of deliverance from enslaving powers that takes place through participation in Christ (2009: 847-49). The common bond between these interpretations is their suggestion that Gal. 2.17-20 demonstrates that justification is more than a forensic declaration.

A third group holds that Gal. 2.17 associates justification and union with Christ, but that 2.19-20 does not directly describe the aspects of union with Christ that constitute justification. For example, Douglas J. Moo, responding to several advocates of the second view, argues that a close tracing of Paul’s logic reveals that the function of 2.19-20 is to explain why rebuilding the law, mentioned in 2.18, is problematic. Galatians 2.19-20 has some logical distance from 2.17, and it is a mistake to regard 2.19-20 as a description of justification (Moo 2013: 172). According to Moo, justification and transformation ‘are inseparable but distinct effects’ of union with Christ. ⁷ Alternatively, Gaventa suggests that there is a theo-logic that stands behind the awkward transition from 2.17 to 2.19-20:

The canvas on which Paul depicts the gospel has enlarged from legal language to existential language. The question is no longer about making things right (rectifying or justifying) and how that is done; instead, it concerns death and life. ⁸

Gaventa claims that this thematic transposition and the subsequent modulation back to ‘justification’ language in Gal. 2.21 are facilitated by the singularity of Paul’s gospel. Because of the all-consuming nature of the gospel, Paul can move swiftly between different conceptual idioms that describe the gospel’s impact in different arenas (2014: 194).

These three broad approaches result in different understandings of the relationship between justification, union with Christ, and the transformation of believers. Despite these differences, all three approaches rely on the claim that Gal. 2.19-20 describes Christian transformation. The phrase ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός is uniformly taken to be a reference to vitalistic union with Christ – Christ living within Paul by means of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This assumption, however, is due for a reevaluation.

An Alternative View of Galatians 2.20

In the eyes of many, the claim that Gal. 2.20 refers to Christ’s indwelling of the believer is more or less self-evident. Although Paul usually speaks of the Holy Spirit as indwelling the believer, he equates the Spirit and Christ in his description of indwelling in Rom. 8.9-11, and, as Shauf points out, Paul describes the Spirit as the ‘Spirit of [God’s] son’ in Gal. 4.6. ⁹ Additionally, some scholars argue that the concept of Christ’s presence within Paul has already been introduced in Gal. 1.16 when he speaks of God revealing his son ‘in me’ (ἐν ἐμοί). ¹⁰ Taken together with the standard translations of 2.20a, these factors make a strong case for reading this passage as a reference to Christ dwelling within Paul.

There is, however, an alternative minority position that goes back at least as far as John Calvin. Calvin writes on Gal. 2.20:

Christ lives in us in two ways. The one consists in His governing us by His Spirit and directing all our actions. The other is what He grants us by participation in His righteousness, that, since we can do nothing of ourselves, we are accepted in Him by God. The first relates to regeneration, the second to the free acceptance of righteousness, and this is how I take the passage. But if anyone would rather apply it to both, I will willingly agree. (1965 [1548]: 43)

Although open to the dominant interpretation, Calvin primarily understood this clause as referring not to Christ’s indwelling of the believer, but rather to God’s acceptance of believers in Christ. Unfortunately, Calvin did not give a detailed explanation of how this reference to Christ’s life relates to the believer’s acceptance before God, and this view received little attention in subsequent years. ¹¹

Nevertheless, Calvin’s proposal has found two recent proponents. Both D.A. Carson and R. Michael Allen suggest that the key to a proper understanding is the phrase ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’. Instead of identifying a reference to ‘vitalistic union’ with Christ (Christ’s indwelling of Paul), Carson and Allen propose that Paul has in view Christ’s life on Paul’s behalf. This proposal, they suggest, enables a reading of Gal. 2.19-20 that connects these verses to the union with Christ described in 2.17 but without implying that justification is something other than a forensic declaration. ¹²

Carson, however, is somewhat vague about the particular ‘life’ in view in Gal. 2.20, and Allen appears to be of two minds. At one point, Allen (2013: 105) appears to identify it with Christ’s earthly life as the obedient human son of God (invoking the Reformed doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’), while elsewhere he points to Christ’s resurrection life as the referent (2013: 142). The present article will seek to further refine this proposal by suggesting that Allen’s latter claim is correct: what Paul has in view is Christ’s resurrection life, and this life is mentioned because of the positive legal standing that it represents. As Allen writes, ‘Christ has already been vindicated by the Father, shown to be righteous in his resurrection glory … Those united with him share in that vindication.’ ¹³

With the essential features of this proposal now in view, we are ready to turn to the question of its viability. The survey of interpretations above suggests that four issues require attention: (1) the presence of union with Christ in Gal. 2.17, (2) the meaning of the key phrase ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ in 2.20, (3) the manner in which Christ’s risen life relates to the justification of believers and (4) the account that this interpretation provides for the logical flow of 2.17-20. We will examine each of these issues in turn.

Justification and Union with Christ in Galatians 2.17

Does Gal. 2.17 associate justification and union with Christ? Adjudication of this issue is complicated because the phrase ‘union with Christ’ means so many different things to so many different people that one does not know what is gained or lost in claims regarding the presence of this concept in 2.17 until an explanation of what is meant by the term is provided. ¹⁴

Nevertheless, the arguments for the absence of union with Christ in 2.17 are problematic. For example, the claim that the phrase ‘justified by the law (ἐν νομῷ)’ in Gal. 3.11 represents a grammatical parallel is dubious. To make this claim, one must substitute a gloss for a substantial account of the significance of the word ἐν in Gal. 3.11. In this verse ἐν probably functions as a dative of reference; Paul’s claim is that no one is justified in relation to the law. ¹⁵ The context, then, explains the relationship in view by highlighting that the law sets forth its own terms on how to attain the status of ‘righteous’: one must fully obey the law (3.10, 12). To be ‘justified by the law’ (3.11) means fulfilling the terms set forth in the law, namely, obeying its commands. This fuller account of Paul’s use of ἐν in 3.11 makes clear that a facile appeal to the common use of the preposition ἐν with the verb ‘justified’ in Gal. 2.17 and 3.11 does not get one very far. Too much of the significance of this preposition depends on the interplay between the semantics of the term and the pragmatic features of the context, and many of the resulting nuances of Paul’s use of ἐν in 3.11 are non-transferable to 2.17.

Perhaps more importantly, the translation of ἐν Χριστῷ in Gal. 2.17 by itself resolves very little. Regardless of whether one translates the phrase as ‘in Christ’ or ‘by Christ’, the preposition used to translate ἐν will still be susceptible to multiple interpretations, and one could easily suggest that the phrase ‘justified by Christ’ means something like ‘justified by means of the relationship with Christ described in Gal. 2.19-20’. Even an instrumental interpretation of ἐν Χριστῷ may ultimately entail some notion of union with Christ once the meaning of ‘by Christ’ is unpacked.

It is worth noting, however, that Paul does elsewhere associate righteousness and union with Christ in the sense of incorporation into Christ. In Phil. 3.8-9 Paul states that his goal is to ‘gain Christ and be found in him, not having my righteousness be that which comes from the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends upon faith’. Leaving aside the many controversial issues in this verse, it is clear that having the righteousness that comes from God is identified as an aspect of what it means to be ‘found’ in Christ. This close association between ‘righteousness’ and being in Christ makes a strong prima facie case for the presence of union with Christ in Gal. 2.17. If Paul can speak of having ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) as a matter of being ‘in Christ’, is it not reasonable to expect him to say something similar about justification (cf. Carson 2004: 72)?

Nevertheless, the most important factor in determining the meaning of ἐν Χριστῷ in Gal. 2.17 is the account that one gives of the logic of Paul’s argument. This task, however, will have to be postponed until we have explored a few important aspects of 2.19-20.

The Meaning of ‘Christ Lives ἐν ἐµοί’ in Galatians 2.20

A central issue for the view hinted at by Calvin and promoted by Carson and Allen is the meaning of the phrase ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ in Gal. 2.20. ¹⁶ Carson suggests that the nearly ubiquitous translation of this phrase as ‘Christ lives in me’ is misleading; it unduly prejudices interpreters to favor the position that Christ’s indwelling of Paul is in view. Carson notes, however, that ἐν + dative of the personal pronoun often does not bear a locative meaning: ‘In as many as 30 percent of the instances of ἐν + dative of personal pronoun in the Pauline corpus, the expression is somewhat akin to a dative of reference’ (2004: 73). In this use the syntactical function of ἐν is simply to specify that the object of the preposition bears some relation to the word or phrase that it modifies. The specific nature of the relation in view varies widely and depends on the meanings of, and expected relationships between, the preposition’s object and the word or phrase that the preposition modifies.

We have already examined one occurrence of this use of ἐν in my earlier comments on Gal. 3.11. Carson points to Gal. 1.24 as another example. Paul here writes, ‘And they glorified God in me (ἐν ἐμοί)’ (2004: 73). As is widely recognized, the use of ἐν in this verse does not mean ‘inside of me’, but rather something like ‘with respect to me’ or ‘in my case’. Several translations even opt for the periphrastic gloss ‘because of me’. ¹⁷ In 1.24 the syntactical function of ἐν is to indicate that the glorifying of God occurred in relation to Paul. From the context it becomes clear that the particular relation in view is causal; the churches glorified God because he had transformed Paul from being a persecutor of the church into a proclaimer of Christ. ¹⁸

Carson and Allen both claim that Paul’s use of the phrase ἐν ἐμοί in Gal. 2.20 is similar. Therefore, a wooden translation of the relevant clause would read either ‘Christ lives with respect to me’ or ‘Christ lives in relation to me’. On this reading, the function of the preposition is simply to indicate that Christ’s life bears some relation to Paul. Due to the parallel with the concept of Paul’s incorporation into Christ’s death, the context indicates that the specific relation in view is one of positional union with Christ. As Allen states, ‘Christ lives outside of me, yet for me’ (2013: 104). Carson refers to Col. 3.3-4 as a conceptual parallel: ‘For you died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory’. Here Christ is described as the life of the Colossian believers, and this life is hidden in God not present within them. ¹⁹ This, Carson suggests, is precisely the same idea as that conveyed by the phrase ἐν ἐμοί in Gal. 2.20. ²⁰

Several pieces of evidence suggest the viability of this interpretation of ἐν ἐμοί. First, Carson’s estimation that 30 per cent of the instances of ἐν + dative of the personal pronoun in the Pauline corpus function like datives of reference is perhaps a little high, but not too far off the mark. Excluding third person personal pronouns, which include far too many disputed passages, ²¹ ἐν + dative of the personal pronoun occurs a little over 80 times in the Pauline corpus, give or take a few textual variants. Of these, 8 are almost certainly best taken in a sense akin to a dative of reference, and there are at least another 9 possible or probable instances. ²²

Second, the claim that Gal. 1.16 has already introduced the concept of Christ dwelling within Paul is dubious. In this verse, Paul states that God was pleased ‘to reveal his son ἐν ἐμοί’. Advocates of the view that this refers to indwelling take the phrase ἐν ἐμοί to mean ‘within me’. Unfortunately, the only alternative to this reading that is typically discussed is the suggestion that ἐν ἐμοί could be translated as ‘to me’. ²³ As in Gal. 1.24 and 2.20, the best reading of the phrase ἐν ἐμοί in Gal. 1.16 is probably in the sense akin to a dative of reference. On this reading, the prepositional phrase specifies that the revelation that Paul has in mind is the revelation of Christ ‘in my case’. ²⁴ Paul is thus using this phrase to distinguish the special revelation of Christ to him from the revelation of Christ in the central events of the gospel story. ²⁵

Third, the verb used by Paul in Gal. 2.20 is unlikely to have implied the concept of indwelling to his original audience. At every other place in the Pauline corpus where a verb is used to refer to the concept of indwelling, the verb in question is either οἰκέω or a compound verb built on this root. ²⁶ The Pauline corpus never uses ζάω to refer to the concept of indwelling.

Fourth, the parallels at work within this passage suggest that the primary sense in which Paul intends the verb ζάω in this clause is in the sense of being alive as opposed to being dead. Paul’s full statement sets the life of which he speaks in contrast to death: ‘I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’. Furthermore, as is widely recognized, this full statement is a further explanation of Paul’s preceding claim in Gal. 2.19, ‘I died to the law through the law in order that I might live to God’. Although some interpreters suggest that the final clause here should be translated as ‘live for God’, ²⁷ it is more consistent to view both of the datives in this statement as datives of relation. Richard B. Hays, noting the grammatical parallel in 4 Macc. 16.24-25, suggests the gloss, ‘to have found life before God’. ²⁸ The implication is that the meaning of ζάω in the parallel explanatory statement in Gal. 2.20 is life as the opposite of death, ²⁹ and this makes unlikely the interpretation of the phrase ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ in terms of a transformative indwelling.

Fifth, further support for this proposal may be found in Rom. 6.1-14. In this passage Paul discusses the relationship between believers and the death and resurrection of Christ in strikingly similar terms. He writes in 6.8-11:

And if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer rules over him. For what he died, he died to sin (τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν), once for all, but what he lives, he lives to God (ζῇ τῷ θεῷ). Thus, you also must consider yourselves dead to sin but living to God (νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντος δὲ τῷ θεῷ) in Christ Jesus.

This passage parallels Gal. 2.19 both with the use of the expression ‘live to God’ and in the pairing of that expression with a contrasting ‘died to …’. ³⁰ This striking grammatical parallel suggests that the meaning of ζάω in Rom. 6.8-11 is likely to correspond to the intended meaning of this term in Gal. 2.19. It is highly significant that, in Rom. 6.1-14, Christ’s life is described as a position that believers share, not an activity that Christ performs in or through them. Although some suggest that the phrase ‘living to God’ in Rom. 6.8-11 should be interpreted as a reference to Christian obedience, ‘living for God’, ³¹ Paul goes on to speak of this life not as the actual obedience of Christians, but rather as a part of the reason that believers ought to offer obedience to God: ‘Do not present your members as instruments of righteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life (ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας), and your members as instruments of righteousness to God’ (Rom. 6.13). As Charles H. Cosgrove states, ‘His argument … shows that he regards ethical living to God to be dependent upon sharing in eschatological life through Christ’. ³² In keeping with the proposed reading of Gal. 2.20, Rom. 6.1-14 portrays the life in which believers share in Christ as something distinct from (although not unrelated to) their practical lives of obedience.

Sixth, this reading provides an illuminating explanation of the otherwise slightly awkward continuation of Gal. 2.20: ‘And what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’. The dominant reading suggests that these words describe the practical outworking of the life of Christ in Paul. Paul’s previous claim that he no longer lives is consequently portrayed by some interpreters as a metaphor, hyperbolic speech, or an exaggeration, while the description of his life ‘in the flesh’ (2.20) is taken to be the ‘more sober’ account. ³³ If, however, one understands the words ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ in terms of Christ’s life outside but on behalf of Paul, then one need not write off this claim as hyperbole. Instead, the phrase refers to the life that Paul has found before God, namely, the life of the risen Christ. This life, as the parallels of Col. 1.3-4 and Rom. 6.1-14 illustrate, is actually something distinct from Paul’s life ‘in the flesh’.

This interpretation assigns real significance to the phrase ‘in the flesh’, which is somewhat awkward in the dominant interpretation. Commentators regularly emphasize that this refers to Paul’s bodily life on earth, ³⁴ but why, on the dominant reading, would Paul need to add this qualifier? What other life could be in view? On the other hand, if Paul has just been speaking of Christ’s risen life on his behalf, then presenting a distinct description of the manner of his continuing life on earth would follow quite naturally. On this reading the final statement explains that Paul lives his life ‘in the flesh’ in the manner that results in union with the death and resurrection of Christ: ‘by faith’ (ἐν πίστει; cf. Carson 2004: 74).

Thus, there are good reasons to think that the words ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ should be interpreted as a reference to Christ’s own risen life, not the indwelling of Paul by Christ or the Spirit. Paul is claiming that Christ lives on his behalf; as Carson writes, ‘So great is [Paul’s] identity with Christ that, as he has been crucified with Christ, so also Christ’s life is his’ (2004: 74).

The Legal Significance of Christ’s Risen Life

The next question, then, is whether or not a case can be made for interpreting the relationship between Paul and Christ as described in Gal. 2.19-20 to be legal in nature. Although Gaventa suggests that Paul moves beyond the realm of the courtroom to the existential plane with the introduction of the language of ‘death’ and ‘life’ in 2.19 (2014: 194), and others claim that he has shifted from legal matters to the topic of the Christian life, ³⁵ there is evidence that he still has the concerns of the courtroom in view.

Few would have trouble explaining the relationship between justification and Paul’s references to death in 2.19-20, because Paul often associates justification with the death of Christ. In fact, many suggest that his enigmatic claim to have ‘died to the law through the law’ (2.19) is best explained in light of 3.10-14, where Christ’s crucifixion is portrayed as the basis of justification because it redeems believers from the curse of the law. ³⁶

What is often missed, however, is that Gal. 3.10-14 also provides insight into Paul’s understanding of the significance of the language of ‘life’. When Paul contrasts justification by faith and justification by works of the law (3.10-14), he describes each with a verse from the Old Testament – justification by faith is linked with Hab. 2.4 and justification by works of the law with Lev. 18.5. Remarkably, the verb ‘justify’ (δικαιόω) does not occur in either of these texts; instead, in both cases, the main verb is ‘live’ (ζάω). In Gal. 3.10-14 justification appears to be portrayed in terms of alternative means of attaining life. ³⁷

This connection is confirmed by Paul’s statement in Gal. 3.21: ‘If a law had been given that was able to give life (ζῳοποιῆσαι), righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) would really be by the law’. If the requirement of Lev. 18.5 (obeying the law) were sufficiently fulfilled, one could be righteous by means of the law and thereby attain life, but because the law does not give life, it is not a route to attaining righteousness. ³⁸

The vocabulary of ‘life’ plays a prominent role in these passages because it relates to justification in the same way that ‘death’ relates to condemnation. ‘Death’ is not a courtroom verdict; it is a judicial sentence that implies a negative verdict. In the same way, the granting of life also implies a verdict. As noted by Morna Hooker, ‘The link between justification and resurrection is a natural one. To pronounce a man righteous is to reverse the condemnation which sentenced him to death’ (1990: 40).

This connection is abundantly evident in other passages in Paul’s writings. In addition to the similar appeals to Hab. 1.4 in Rom. 1.17 and Lev. 18.5 in Rom. 10.5, Rom. 2.6-16 begins by describing the reward of those who do good in terms of ‘eternal life’ and then proceeds to speak of the verdict that determines who receives that life with the verb δικαιόω. Romans 5.12-21 contrasts Adam’s sin – which led to condemnation and death – with the obedient act of Christ, describing the result of that act as ‘justification leading to life’ and ‘grace reigning through righteousness leading to eternal life’. In Rom. 8.10-11 Paul states that ‘the Spirit is life because of righteousness’, and he then goes on to explain the ‘life’ in view as bodily resurrection. Moreover, Rom. 4.25 directly associates justification with the resurrection of Christ, stating that he ‘was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification’. Finally, in Phil. 3.8-11 Paul gives the following description of the goal of receiving righteousness: ‘that I may know [Christ] and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if somehow I might attain to the resurrection from the dead’. ³⁹

This connection between righteousness/justification and the reward of eternal life is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition. As belief in resurrection developed, a corresponding belief also emerged in a final judgment separating the righteous, who receive resurrection life, from the wicked. Numerous texts reflect this perspective, ⁴⁰ and several even interpret Lev. 18.5 as an offer of resurrection and eternal life upon the condition of obedience to the law. ⁴¹ For those familiar with these traditions, Paul’s reference to resurrection life in Gal. 2.20 would not appear to be a departure from the concerns of the courtroom in the preceding lines, but rather as an integral aspect of the divine judgment that Paul has in view.

Thus, in Gal. 2.20, when Paul says, ‘Christ lives with respect to me (ἐν ἐμοί)’, this reference to Christ’s life metonymically represents Christ’s vindication as righteous; Paul’s implicit claim is that he has been incorporated into Christ’s righteous status in the divine courtroom. He is ‘dead to the law’ and ‘alive to God’ because Christ’s death has freed him from the law’s curse (‘I am crucified with Christ’) and Christ’s risen life represents the positive standing before God in which he now stands (‘Christ lives with respect to me’). Contra Gaventa and those who suggest that Paul is here focused not on justification but on the Christian life, Gal. 2.19-20 continues the forensic theme from the preceding lines because death and life are precisely the matters that are at stake in the divine courtroom.

The Logic of Galatians 2.17-20 Revisited

Having explored the meaning of Gal. 2.19-20, we are now in a position to discuss how the proposed reading accounts for the logical flow of 2.17-20.

As noted above, Moo argues that the logic of Paul’s argument shows that Gal. 2.19-20 is not meant to describe the ‘justification ἐν Χριστῷ’ mentioned in 2.17: ‘verses 19-20, with their central claim about “dying to the law”, directly support the importance of not “rebuilding” the law again (v. 18) and, more distantly, Paul’s claim that justification takes place apart from the law (v. 16)’ (2013: 172).

One must admit that this construal of Paul’s argument is possible; the logical flow does not require that the relationship described in 2.19-20 is meant to be a direct description of the justifying relationship to which Paul refers in 2.17. Nevertheless, demonstrating that the logic of the argument does not require a direct relationship falls far short of proving that no such direct relationship exists. Moo’s conclusion is driven by his forensic interpretation of ‘justification’ language and his interpretation of Gal. 2.19-20 as a description of Christian transformation. We have seen, however, that there are good reasons to question the latter claim, and thus an alternative account of Paul’s logic is possible.

Paul’s argument against ‘rebuilding’ the law is compact, but it unfolds in distinct stages. First, he states, ‘For through the law I died to the law’. This supports his claim from Gal. 2.18 that returning to the law would be a transgression through highly ironic logic: in order to return to the law, one must transgress a separation that the law itself established, and thus returning to the law makes one a transgressor of the law. Paul’s argument at this point is essentially, ‘What the law has put asunder, let no man join together’. ⁴²

Second, Paul describes the legal purpose of his separation from the law: ‘in order that I might live to God’. As noted above, several pieces of evidence indicate that Paul is not here speaking of Christian obedience – living ‘for God’ – but rather of receiving the life that results from a positive verdict in the divine courtroom. His point is that separation from the law was necessary in order for him to attain this life, as he explains in greater detail in 3.10-14.

The next portion of 2.19-20 explains how this transformation of Paul’s legal status is rooted in the ἐν Χριστῷ relationship mentioned in 2.17. Paul writes, ‘I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in relation to me’. His death to the law and life in relation to God are realities that exist because of his identification with Christ’s death and resurrection life. It is Paul’s identification with these events that determines his legal status. His union with Christ, the ἐν Χριστῷ relationship, stands behind the claim that returning to the law would make him a transgressor.

Paul concludes Gal. 2.20 by pointing out that he carries out his current earthly life in the manner that results in this justifying relationship: ‘but what I now live in the flesh, I live by faith (ἐν πίστει) in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’. In 2.19-20 Paul’s argument circles back not only to the concept of justification ἐν Χριστῷ from 2.17, but also to the emphasis on ‘faith’ (πίστις) as the means of justification from 2.16. ⁴³

The overall effect of Paul’s argument is to reverse the logic of the question he asks in Gal. 2.17: ‘But if seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves were also found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin?’ Paul shows that, contrary to this query, seeking to be justified in Christ (and consequently abandoning the law) does not make Christ a servant of sin because, despite the fact that some may label Jewish Christians as ‘sinners’ like the Gentiles, justification in Christ entails a legally sanctioned separation from the law resulting in life before God. To return to the law would be the real transgression because that would violate a separation established through the law itself.

Conclusion

At the beginning of this article I indicated my intention to address the challenge of specifying the relationship between justification in Gal. 2.17 and the description of Paul’s relation to Christ in 2.19-20. The proposal I have advanced is that 2.19-20 is a description of the justifying relationship mentioned in 2.17 because the references to ‘life’ in 2.19-20 metonymically represent a positive verdict in the divine courtroom. Furthermore, it has been proposed that the phrase ‘Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί’ should be viewed as a reference to Christ’s resurrection life as a reality into which Paul has been incorporated rather than as a reference to Christ’s presence within Paul by means of the Holy Spirit. Christ’s resurrection life represents his own status as righteous before God, and Paul can speak of this life and status as his because of his union with Christ.

This proposal largely corresponds to the view expressed in Calvin’s commentary on Galatians, recently reiterated by Carson and Allen. However, it deepens and clarifies this view by adding new arguments in its favor, specifying that the life that Paul has in mind is Christ’s risen life, and by providing a more thorough explanation of how that life relates to the justification of believers.

Entrenched views like the claim that Gal. 2.19-20 speaks of Christian transformation are difficult to overturn. Nevertheless, this article has argued that there is a plausible alternative with several attractive exegetical benefits: it provides a clear and concise account of the logic of the passage, it avoids proposing meanings for Paul’s words that fall outside of their ordinary semantic ranges, and it has remarkable theological correspondence to several other passages in the Pauline corpus. At the very least, this view deserves more attention than it has so far received; in the end, it may prove to be the key to solving some of the difficulties in this highly disputed text.