Commentators generally recognize the central place that Galatians 2:15–21 occupies in Paul’s overall argument in the epistle, and yet there is significantly less consensus regarding the interpretation of this passage. Galatians 2:17–20 are particularly challenging verses. What does Paul mean by rebuilding “what I tore down” (Gal 2:18 ESV)? In what sense did Paul die to the law “through the law” (2:19)? And how do these points relate to what Paul says on justification and the grace of God (2:16, 21)? Some interpretations detect a shift in these verses whereby the apostle pivots from justification to redemptive-historical issues or the broader soteriological theme of union with Christ. These readings typically infer that Paul is speaking about the experiential and renovative aspects of salvation in verses 19–20. While Paul does expand his theological perspective, this essay suggests that forensic issues of legal satisfaction, righteousness, and judgment remain the apostle’s primary concern throughout these verses and thus in Galatians 2:15–21 overall.

The aim of this essay is twofold: first, to propose that a justification-centric reading of verses 17–20 is not only warranted but supports a more cohesive interpretation of Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15–21; and second, to demonstrate the priority of the forensic principle in Paul’s soteriological outlook and consider how that emphasis should inform our theology. Part 1 considers the literary context of Galatians 2:17–20, starting with an analysis of the overarching theological concern in the epistle. After sketching the basic structure and contours of Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15–21, part 2 offers a detailed examination of verses 17–20. Lastly, part 3 relates the proposed reading of these verses to other Pauline writings and considers a few specific theological topics.

1. Context of Galatians 2:15–21

This section provides an overview of Paul’s doctrine of justification and the structure of the apostle’s argument in the Galatians 2:15–21, which lays the groundwork for the in-depth discussion of verses 17–20 in part 2.

1.1. Central Issue in Galatians

Although Galatians predates the Jerusalem council recounted in Acts 15, the doctrinal and ecclesial issues are similar.1 The nature of the problem that Paul is confronting shapes the deeply polemical tone of the epistle. Paul is apparently responding to charges that he changed his gospel message (Gal 2:1–5) and to accusations that he was trying to “please men” by being more accommodating to Gentiles (1:10).2 The core issue of Galatians, however, is the fundamental doctrinal/theological question of how human beings can be “in the right” before God—i.e., justification. That issue underlies the attendant questions regarding the basis for inclusion of Gentiles into the church, the function of the law, and so forth.

Paul in Galatians depicts justification as the rendering of a legal verdict that pronounces a person to be in right standing with God based upon the work of Christ.3 It is a forensic—that is, legal and judicial—declaration of righteousness by God, connoting the imagery and metaphor of a lawcourt. Douglas Moo convincingly argues that when Paul instructs on justification in the epistle he has Isaiah 46–55 in view (although, apart from Gal 4:27, he does not quote from it) and thus God’s activity of “establishing right” and “vindication,” or the status of “having been vindicated.”4 The verb δικαιόω hence appears in the passive voice—e.g., δικαιοῦται, δικαιωθῶμεν, δικαιωθήσεται (Gal 2:16)—with the human person as the subject and recipient of God’s act. To be justified is to be accepted as righteous or just in the sight of God in his eschatological judgment; or as Paul states in Galatians 3:11, to be “justified before God.” Paul’s principal argument is that this comes by faith—that is, faith in Christ is the means by which a person is vindicated or judged as righteous.

The apostle’s doctrine of justification is in stark contrast with the position of his opponents. Paul makes several references throughout Galatians that provide insight into these “agitators.”5 They are “false brothers” from outside the community who have been troubling the Galatians with their ideas, distracting the churches from the truth that the apostle had taught (Gal 1:7; 2:4; 5:7, 12). The agitators have a high view of the continuity of Christianity with the Mosaic covenant, insisting on submission to the law of Moses, particularly circumcision, in addition to embracing Jesus as the Messiah.6 Thomas Schreiner notes that circumcision “was the badge and symbol that one must obey the whole law (torah).”7 For the agitators, then, submission and observance of the law is necessary in order for a person to be justified (4:21; 5:4). They therefore insist that Gentile believers must be circumcised and brought under the law (5:2–4; 6:12); they must “Judaize” (become Jews) in order to have right standing with God and be included among his people.

1.2. Immediate Context of Galatians 2:17–20

The specific situation that prompts Paul’s response in Galatians 2:15–21, however, does not involve the agitators directly but the conduct of Peter, Barnabas, and other Jewish Christians in Antioch. Specifically, Paul observed that they were not acting in accord with the “truth of the gospel” (2:14). First, they were being hypocrites. They themselves felt free to fellowship with the Gentiles and live like them until certain men from James arrived (2:12). Thereafter, they acted as though such fellowship was problematic, even prohibited. Second, and more importantly, by their behavior they indicated (and supported the agitators’ position) that Gentiles must submit and conform to the law in order to be Christians.

Galatians 2:15–21 then serves as the transition point in the epistle. Moo observes that Paul moves from autobiographical matters and the confrontation in Antioch to address the “central theological issue that lies behind that incident and the situation in Galatia as well.”8 The issue is broader than table fellowship or even a proper understanding of salvation history; the question Paul is addressing is fundamentally anthropological and soteriological.9 Galatians 2:15–21 is the key passage wherein Paul sets forth his thesis regarding the “truth of the gospel.” It serves as the doctrinal base (or “hermeneutical key”10) upon which he will expound and from which he will draw implications in the remainder of the letter. And in his thesis, as I will argue below, Paul primarily and consistently emphasizes the forensic aspect of God’s gracious salvation of sinners in and through Jesus Christ.

As for the structure of Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15–21, he starts with two premises concerning justification and the law and then proceeds to demonstrate that they cannot both be true. The first premise is expressed in verse 15: Gentile Christians are “sinners” unless they submit to the law, especially circumcision, and “live like Jews” (2:14).11 This is the explicit teaching of the agitators, and it was reflected in the behavior of Peter and the Jewish Christians at Antioch, even though they believed otherwise (hence Paul’s charge of hypocrisy). Paul adopts this position for the sake of argument—as J. B. Lightfoot observes, “sinners” is used here with some irony.12 An implied part of this first premise—an inference of the Jew/Gentile distinction—is that the Gentile Christians’ faith in Christ is insufficient for acceptance and inclusion among God’s people.

The second premise, in verse 16, sets forth Paul’s summary statement regarding justification: a person is justified by faith in Jesus Christ (ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), not by works of the law (καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου).13 At the end of the verse the apostle adds for emphasis that no one—Jew or Gentile (πᾶσα σάρξ being an OT reference to all humanity)14—will be justified by works (οὐ δικαιωθήσεται). This clarification apparently comes in response to the view that a person is justified by faith in Christ in conjunction with works of the law. Moo observes that “in place of the agitators’ synthesis of faith in Christ and the law, Paul insists on an antithesis: it is Christ and therefore not the law.”15 In short, verse 16 sets up faith/Christ and works/law as mutually exclusive for justification—those who seek to be justified in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ, 2:17) cannot be those who seek the same by the law (ἐν νόμῷ, 5:4).

Having set up the two competing premises in verses 15 and 16, the Christ-versus-law antithesis occupies Paul’s argument in verses 17–20. Briefly, Paul demonstrates the incompatibility of faith and works for justification and then explains the justified person’s relationship to the law because of Christ. Verses 17–20 then lead into Paul’s provocative conclusion in verse 21 in which he draws a diametric contrast between God’s grace and human effort.16 Justification by faith in Christ is an act of God’s grace because righteousness comes by trusting in Christ’s atoning work, not by personal achievement in keeping the law.17 Conversely, to seek justifying righteousness by the law is to “nullify the grace of God” and to assert that Christ’s death was for “no purpose” (2:21). If the law was sufficient for righteousness, then his death was superfluous.18 Paul’s climactic summation in verse 21 therefore denotes that forensic justification, God’s gracious declaration of the believer’s righteousness based upon Christ’s death and resurrection, is central to the truth of the gospel.

2. Examination of Galatians 2:17–20

Having surveyed the context and general structure of Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15–20, this part of the essay carefully examines verses 17–20. My thesis is that Paul maintains a consistent focus on forensic righteousness/justification even while he broadens his discourse to issues of redemptive history, union with Christ, and the transformative aspect of salvation.

2.1. Verse 17

As indicated by the particle δέ, Paul presents a problem to Peter and the other Jewish Christians. In context, δέ marks an objection or potential contrast to what Paul has just said. The phrase ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ is a restatement of καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν in verse 16—that is, the Jewish Christians’ endeavor to be justified in Christ is their believing in Christ so that they might be justified. The present active adverbial participle (ζητοῦντες), followed by a passive complementary infinitive (δικαιωθῆναι), has a causal relationship to their status and raises a serious predicament. By or as a result of ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ, the Jewish Christians are ironically themselves (αὐτοί) also found to be “sinners” (ἁμαρτωλοί) in God’s judgment. This outcome is phrased as the protasis of a first-class conditional (“But if, in our endeavor…”), as indicated by the particle εἰ. Like Paul’s assertion in Galatians 2:15, it is assumed to be true for the sake of argument; actually, Paul offers it as a hypothetical contrary to fact for the purpose of showing that verse 15 and verse 16 express two irreconcilable positions. On the one hand, these Jewish Christians believe (or act as if they believe) that Gentile Christians are “sinners” unless they submit to the law and become Jews (2:14–15). On the other hand, they presumably agree with Paul’s statement in verse 16 that no one can be justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, having also believed in Christ Jesus, they are (somehow) in the same position as Gentile “sinners.”

Why, despite the Jew/Gentile distinction, would relying on Christ result in the Jewish Christian also being found a “sinner”? Because seeking to be justified in Christ means to set aside the law for justification, the very law that imposes the separation between Jew and Gentile. Setting aside the law is a point Paul will expand upon in the following verses, but here in verse 17 it is an implied consequence of “our endeavor to be justified in Christ.” The Gentile church members had been living under the belief that they are not under compulsion to become Jews in order to be Christians, because justification is by faith and not by keeping the law. And this is how Peter and the other Jewish Christians in Antioch were also living before the arrival of certain men from Jerusalem. But if the Jewish Christians are now insisting—whether by behavior (as Peter) or teaching (as the agitators)—that Gentiles must submit to the law, then by implication Christ is insufficient for justification. Those relying on Christ and not works (2:16) are still in sin and thus found to be “sinners.” Paul, however, clearly rejects this hypothesis because the apodosis of the conditional in verse 17 is a rhetorical question that expects a negative answer, as indicated by the particle ἆρα.

Being found “sinners” not only entails that Christ would be inadequate for justification, but that he would be a “servant of sin.” The NASB translates διάκονος as “minister,” which is helpful because Paul’s meaning here is that Christ would function as the agent that accomplishes something for sin.19 Some commentators interpret this phrase as Paul addressing the charge that his doctrine of grace opens the door to sinful behavior as in Romans 6:1, especially since Paul provides the same exclamatory answer, μὴ γένοιτο.20 While the behavior of the believer is certainly in view, the foreground issue that Paul is addressing is a forensic one. They would be “found” (εὑρέθημεν) to be sinners. The verb is passive aorist, connoting a legal/judicatory act performed upon the person seeking justification in Christ.

To summarize Paul’s argument thus far, if adherence to the law is necessary for justification—that is, if the Jew/Gentile distinction based on law-keeping (Gal 2:15) is true and warranted—then the Jewish Christian who relies on Christ and not works finds condemnation instead. He is in the same position as the Gentile “sinner,” and Christ is then a minister of sin/condemnation rather than of righteousness/justification. That is, of course, an absurd consequence. And denying the consequent means that the antecedent is false—in other words, Christ cannot be a minister of sin, and thus seeking to be justified in Christ cannot result in being “found to be sinners.”21 By implication, then, abandoning the law for justification (the corollary of seeking justification in Christ) is not sinful. It is rather the Jew/Gentile demarcation proposed in verse 15 that must be erroneous. Jews and Gentiles are both justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, reconfirming Paul’s thesis in verse 16.

There are various opinions on how to interpret Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:15, and this, in turn, affects one’s interpretation of verse 17. One interpretation is that Paul is conceding that he and Peter are part of God’s historical covenant people, whereas the Gentiles are by birth separated from God (cf. Eph 2:11–12). Hence, the Jewish Christians did have special privileges, but those availed for naught when they sought justification in Christ and realized that they were sinners along with the Gentiles.22 Others say that Paul is using traditional Jewish language. The Gentiles are “sinners” because the torah excluded them from the people of God. But now that the law no longer serves that function, Jewish Christians who set aside the law by seeking Christ have the same status as Gentile believers. The latter part of verse 17 is hence the anticipated or actual objection of Paul’s opponents: “If your teaching calls upon Jews to abandon the law and become like the Gentiles, then are you not making Christ a servant of sin? Does he not lead us to sin?”23

These interpretations each offer strengths and weaknesses, and I admit that my reading of verses 15 and 17 has its own difficulties. For example, it is not readily apparent from verse 15 itself that Paul is assuming the position of Peter and the agitators for the sake of argument. Moreover, my analysis presents the flow of Paul’s argument as largely rhetorical and somewhat less straightforward. Nonetheless, I believe the alternative interpretations suffer from a few significant problems. First, it seems unlikely to me that Paul would affirm that Jews and Gentiles differ in terms of being sinners before faith in Christ (see, e.g., Rom 3:9). Second, Paul generally discounts the Jew/Gentile distinction when speaking of them as believers since they are all part of the same body (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 3:6; Col 3:11); thus, it makes sense that he would use the distinction in this passage only for the purpose of rebutting it. Third, saying that those who endeavor to be justified can in a genuine sense be “found to be sinners” as a consequence of seeking justification in Christ seems like an odd proposition for Paul to affirm if this is the core doctrine he is seeking to explain and defend in the epistle. Paul’s μὴ γένοιτο makes more sense if he is not only refuting the apodosis (that Christ can be a “servant of sin”) but the protasis of the conditional as well.24

2.2. Verse 18

If verse 17 offers a negative apologetic (by way of a reductio ad absurdum) for justification by faith in Christ, then verse 18 is similarly a negative argument against justification by works/law. Paul employs another first-class conditional statement for this purpose, again beginning with εἰ. As indicated by the connective γάρ, verse 18 serves as an explanation of μὴ γένοιτο in verse 17 and progresses his overall argument in Galatians 2:15–21.

Given the stark contrast that he draws between justification by faith in Christ (ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ) versus the works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) in Galatians 2:16, that which was torn down (ἃ κατέλυσα) should be understood as the law as the means or way of justification. The law was “torn down” when they believed in Christ Jesus because justification is by faith and not works. Paul’s implied premise is that the truth of one entails the falsity of the other, and vice versa. If it is false that seeking justification in Christ through faith makes someone a sinner—because this would make Christ a “minister of sin” (μὴ γένοιτο)—then it is true that what does make him a sinner is seeking justification by the law through works.25

The clause παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω serves as the contrast to being found to be a sinner because of Christ in verse 17. The conditional statement is one of equivalence, that is, rebuilding what one had previously demolished (protasis) is to prove oneself a transgressor (apodosis).26 While παραβάτης is synonymous with ἁμαρτωλός in verse 17, there is the added nuance of being a lawbreaker. The point is that reestablishing (or rebuilding, to use Paul’s metaphor) the law for justification only serves to demonstrate that the law should not have been set aside in the first place. The present rebuilding demonstrates that the destruction was wrong. By now insisting on submission to the law for Jews and Gentiles alike, Peter simply proves that he was transgressing the law while living like a Gentile and not as a Jew (Gal 2:14). And the same argument can be extended to the agitators who profess Christ and yet insist on the necessity of keeping the law to attain righteous standing before God. F. F. Bruce comments, “If the law was still in force, as the Galatians were being urged to believe, then those who sought salvation elsewhere were transgressors by its standard.”27

Schreiner interprets verse 18 as making a point about salvation history. Rebuilding the OT law is to go back to the “old era” while the “new era” has already been inaugurated by Christ. It is to go backward in salvation history to the age “dominated by sin and the law” rather than live in the age “marked by righteousness and life.”28 The new eschatological age ushered in by Christ and the obsoleteness of the torah is certainly in view, and Paul will address the function of the law as a guardian to anticipate Christ in Galatians 3:21–24. But it seems to me that his primary point here is anthropological and forensic. It is about how a person will be “found” in God’s judgment. He is speaking more broadly and universally of the futility of human effort for justification, a message directly applicable to Gentile Christians, who were never under the “old era” of OT law.

This leads to another implicit point in verse 18, which is that rebuilding the law would prove the person to be a transgressor because righteousness cannot be established by the law (Gal 2:21). Paul has already asserted that personal law-keeping cannot lead to justification in verse 16, a position he develops here and later in the epistle. The person who relies on the law for justification will instead find himself under a curse because he cannot keep the whole law (3:10; 5:3–4). In summary, it is not seeking to be justified by faith in Christ that leads to condemnation as a transgressor but rather returning to the law for righteousness through human effort/works. Together, verses 17 and 18 constitute Paul’s contention that faith/Christ and works/ law are mutually exclusive and his contrasting principles with respect to justification, a claim that verses 19–20 will reinforce and explain further.

2.3. Verses 19–20: “Death”

Moises Silva observes that verse 18 sets forth the paradoxical result that returning to the law leads to sin rather than righteousness.29 And verse 19, which also begins with γάρ, offers an explanation that is itself paradoxical: Paul lives because the law brought about his death.

What is the theological or conceptual connection between Paul’s death and the previous verse? The short answer is that death “to the law” indicates that the edifice of the law for justification has been “torn down.” Let us note that Paul here does not deviate from verse 18’s notion that the law is the means or agent (διὰ νόμου) that brings about condemnation; rather, he takes the concept and develops it in another direction. Being under the law makes a person a παραβάτην, and the legal consequence of being found a transgressor before God is the curse of death. Here Paul touches briefly on the law/sin/curse/death connection (and by implication, its opposite, the faith/righteousness/life connection) that he will explore in Galatians 3:10–22.30 Yet, if that death has taken place—its occurrence signified by the aorist ἀπέθανον—then the law has served its judicial function. This is Paul’s meaning when he asserts that he has died “to the law” (νόμῳ)—i.e., in reference to the law. Bruce rightly observes, “The question of transgressing the law does not arise for one who has died in relation to the law.”31 Because the judicial consequence demanded by the law has been realized, the law no longer has a determining role with respect to Paul’s standing before God.

The nature of Paul’s death to the law is explained by “I have been crucified with Christ.” The perfect tense of συνεσταύρωμαι indicates a completed act with a present, ongoing (stative) effect. Galatians 3:13 explains that Christ became “a curse for us” such that he satisfied the judicial consequence of Paul’s transgressions. Christ, not Paul, was crucified; yet there is a relationship of solidarity between them such that Paul’s “objective position” is that he died to the law by participation in Christ’s death.32 And identification/solidarity with Christ is established by faith in him. Earlier in Galatians 2:16, Paul asserts that they have believed “in” (εἰς, or perhaps even “into”) Christ Jesus, and they have done so for the purpose of (ἵνα) being justified. Justification is, moreover, “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ, 2:17); that is, by union or incorporation into Christ.33 Paul continues this line of thinking in verse 20 when he says that Christ lives ἐν ἐμοί and Paul now lives ἐν πίστει. These connected recurrences of “in” and “faith” indicate that faith is the means by which the close relationship between Christ and the believer is established.

The phraseπαραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ in verse 20 supplies the reason or motive for Paul’s life by faith, but the phrase also highlights the legal aspect of the relationship between Christ and Paul. Jesus is the Son of God “who gave himself,” which in this context means to hand over to an authority for punishment and suffering.34 The usual meanings of ὑπέρ with the genitive include “for the benefit of” or “on behalf of.” Given what Paul says in Galatians 3, what he evidently means here is that Christ gave himself for Paul’s advantage as a substitute.35 Christ suffered the condemnation and curse of the law in Paul’s place, thereby redeeming him from the law (Gal 3:13). This suggests that for Paul there is a legal/forensic unity between him and Christ such that the effect of Christ’s death—namely, the satisfaction of the penal demands of the law—has been applied to Paul. He has been legally joined to the death of his substitute/representative, and therefore Paul has died to the law as well.

To summarize, the logic of Paul’s argument may be clearer if we work backwards from verse 21 to verse 19. Christ died according to the grace of God (2:21), giving himself as a substitute to suffer on Paul’s behalf (2:20). Through faith in Christ, there is an identification/union between Paul and Christ (2:20) such that the condemnation and curse that comes “through the law” (2:19) was borne by Christ for Paul in the crucifixion. Forensically speaking, Christ’s death is Paul’s death, and as such, all the penal demands of the law owed by Paul have been met. Paul was crucified with Christ and has therefore died to the law and is no longer bound to it (2:19; cf. Rom 7:6).36 In short, a believer by faith is united with Christ in Jesus’s death and satisfaction of the law’s demands, resulting in his justification and the tearing down (abandoning) of the law. Conversely, reestablishing the law for justification would mean that the rebuilder has not died to the law but is still under it and obligated to fulfill its requirements.

2.4. Verses 19–20: “Life”

Having examined Paul’s death to the law, the next question is how that relates to Paul’s life. Specifically, what does Paul mean that he died to the law “so that I might live to God”? It is worth noting, first, that ἵνα in verse 19 indicates both purpose and result. Paul died in order to be brought into new life, and verse 20 makes clear that Paul is currently alive in this respect.

Here also Schreiner understands Paul to be making a redemptive-historical claim. The purpose of dying to the law is so that believers no longer live under it but “live in the new age of salvation.”37 As noted above, this observation is correct but shifts Paul’s focus away from justification and implies that justification was different under the “old age.” Yet Paul will point to Abraham as the model for justifying righteousness by faith (Gal 3:6), a righteousness that was never meant to come from the law (3:21).

Other commentators propose that Paul is speaking about the ethical/transformative aspect of salvation. Citing Romans 6:10–11, Bruce comments that believers are no longer under the law because of their faith-union with Christ in his death and resurrection. The believer now lives with Christ in his resurrection life, which is in fact “nothing less than the risen Christ living his life in the believer.”38 Lightfoot similarly observes that Paul is speaking of his present existence as “merged into Christ.”39 Without discounting these interpretations, they seem to suggest that in verses 19–20 Paul stops talking about justification and pivots his focus to the subjective transformed life of the believer.

While I agree that in these verses (especially verse 20) Paul broadens his didactic scope to redemptive-history, union with Christ, and the consequent renovated life of believers in the new age, I would suggest that the priority for Paul, his primary emphasis, is still the forensic/legal aspect of salvation. First, “died to the law” is set in contrast to “live to God.” So just as “crucified with Christ” elucidates Paul’s death to the law, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” explains his God-ward life. If Paul’s solidarity with Christ in the former has a legal aspect, then it seems reasonable to conclude the same for the latter. Just as Paul died to the law vicariously or representationally through Christ’s crucifixion, so also Paul is alive to God vicariously through Christ’s life. The soteriological connection between life and righteousness within Paul’s thinking is evident later in the epistle and elsewhere in Paul’s writings (e.g., Gal 3:11, 21–22; Rom 5:17–18, 21). Christ’s living in Paul should therefore be understood as Christ’s righteousness on account of which Paul is accepted as righteous in God’s sight. Calvin interprets “Christ who lives in me” in this way and says it refers to “justification by free grace.”40

Second, while ἐν ἐμοί is frequently taken in a locative sense,41 ἐν can signal other relationships between two parties. Paul says in Galatians 1:24 that the churches glorified God ἐν ἐμοί, that is, “because of” Paul. The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ (2:17) is contrasted with ἐν νόμῳ (5:4) as different means or agents for justification.42 I would suggest that here in verse 20 ἐν ἐμοί includes the dative of reference or advantage.43 D. A. Carson advocates this reading of ἐν ἐμοί, reasoning, “Paul wasn’t literally crucified, he didn’t literally hang, but Christ was crucified with reference to Paul, with respect to Paul…. Just as Christ’s death was with reference to me, so also Christ’s life is with reference to me.”44 In that case, then, Paul’s meaning is that just as he died with respect to the law, Christ suffering Paul’s condemnation, so now Christ lives to God with respect to (for the advantage of) Paul, the apostle partaking of Christ’s righteousness and life for justification.

Developing the argument further, when Paul says he has been crucified with Christ, he almost certainly includes his participation in Christ’s resurrection. The resurrection is not explicitly mentioned, although it is implied in the reference to Christ’s living in Paul.45 Given their centrality to Paul’s gospel message, Christ’s death and resurrection are frequently mentioned together in his discussion of salvation (e.g., Rom 4:25; 6:4; 8:34). With that in mind, we should generally assume that where Paul only references one act the other is included by implication. Calvin helpfully remarks, “So then, let us remember that whenever mention is made of his death alone, we are to understand at the same time what belongs to his resurrection. Also, the same synecdoche applies to the word ‘resurrection.’”46

“I have been crucified with Christ” thus includes being raised with Christ, an assertion Paul explicitly makes elsewhere with respect to those who have faith in Christ (e.g., Rom 6:4; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12). And being raised with Christ has an unmistakable forensic significance because Christ’s resurrection was his justification, the vindication of his righteousness and complete obedience to the law (Rom 4:25; 1 Tim 3:16).47 Richard Gaffin says of believers that “Christ’s justification, given with his resurrection, becomes theirs. When they are united to the resurrected and justified Christ by faith, his righteousness is reckoned as theirs, or imputed to them.”48 Gaffin does not cite Galatians 2:19–20, but his comments are nevertheless applicable. As mentioned earlier, life and righteousness are bound up together in Paul’s thinking. Indeed, to have life is synonymous with being accepted by God—that is, to be justified as righteous. And if justifying righteousness/life is not found in the law (Gal 2:21) or works (2:16), then by inference righteousness/life is found in Christ and appropriated by faith.

This “forensic reading” of verses 19–20 hence keeps justification squarely within Paul’s purview throughout Galatians 2:17–20 and provides natural connections to Galatians 2:15–16 and Galatians 2:21. As Carson notes, “What this reading [of ἐν ἐμοί] does is show that the entire explanation that Paul gives has to do with justification.”49 Moreover, recognizing the priority of the forensic/legal meaning in these verses helps us better understand the remainder of verse 20. Christ’s justifying righteousness comes at the inception of Paul’s new subjective life of righteousness. He first says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,” before he then describes the life he now lives “in the flesh.” Having been crucified and raised with Christ, Paul is not found to be a sinner under condemnation, contrary to those who rebuild the law, but is found righteous before God and therefore enabled to live for him. Paul has made a radical breach with the law because Christ has delivered him from both the guilt (legal consequence) and power (ethical consequence) of sin that comes through the law. Nonetheless, because Galatians 2:15–21 starts with Paul’s thesis on justification, we should understand that the believer’s change in legal relation logically precedes and makes possible his change in behavior. Having been set free from the law by Christ, the believer has been transferred into the new age of the Spirit (5:22); he has entered into a new life with God as his focus even while living in this “present evil age” (1:4).50 The new God-ward focused life is characterized by praise and gratitude to the Son of God, the one who “loved me and gave himself for me.”51 We thus see in verses 19–20 an order and progression whereby the forensic/legal aspect of salvation provides the basis for the ethical and transformative. Christ died and was raised for Paul, and therefore Paul now lives by and for the Son of God.

3. Theological Reflections

This section will extend the analysis offered in part 2 to a discussion of the priority of the forensic principle in Paul’s epistles and in two key structures/themes in the apostle’s theology, union with Christ and redemptive history. I will then briefly consider the implications of that priority for the relationship between justification and sanctification. Hereinafter, by “priority” I mean a conceptual order that assigns a place of primacy to the forensic relative to the transformative and renovative aspects of salvation in one’s teaching and theology, which corresponds to the logical order (in my view) of justification and sanctification within the ordo salutis.

3.1. Priority of the Forensic in the Pauline Epistles

Recognizing Paul’s consistent focus on justification in Galatians 2:17–20 does not, of course, require that we limit his teaching in the passage to forensic issues of legal satisfaction, righteousness, vindication, and so forth. Nor should we feel compelled to choose between forensic and transformative/experiential categories in our interpretation and analysis. Paul’s soteriology is multifaceted and encompasses both as well as various other motifs. We should nevertheless recognize the primary importance of the forensic in the structure of Paul’s thinking. Geerhardus Vos says in this regard:

Paul’s mind was to such an extent forensically oriented that he regarded the entire complex of subjective spiritual changes that take place in the believer and of subjective spiritual blessings enjoyed by the believer as the direct outcome of the forensic work of Christ applied in justification. The mystical is based on the forensic, not the forensic on the mystical.52

This forensic-transformative order is reflected in the interpretation of Galatians 2:17–20 suggested above, and we also see it in the organizational structure of the epistle. Paul’s definition and defense of “the truth of the gospel” starts with his thesis regarding justification by faith in Galatians 2:15–21. In Galatians 3, the apostle then expounds on the difference between faith and the law in terms of righteousness and God’s gracious promise of salvation. Christ redeemed his people from the curse of the law by enduring that curse for them so that promised blessing of Abraham might come to those who believe (3:13). Righteousness and life do not come through the law (3:21); rather, the righteous live by faith and are justified by faith (3:11, 24). Justification and salvation history continue to be Paul’s main focus in Galatians 4 through the first half of Galatians 5 before Paul turns his attention to ethical implications in Galatians 5:13–26.

Romans reflects a similar structure. At the outset of that epistle, Paul proclaims his allegiance to the gospel, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith” (Rom 1:17). Herman Ridderbos understands Paul to be speaking about a righteousness “which is valid in [God’s] judgment” and which “God attributes to man”—in other words, the apostle is dealing with a “forensic category.”53 The forensic continues to be prominent in the early part of the epistle wherein Paul asserts that God is both just and the justifier of those who have faith (3:26), argues for the justification of the “ungodly” by faith (4:5), and explains the sin/condemnation/death versus righteousness/justification/life contrast between Adam and Christ (5:12–21). Having laid this groundwork, Paul then proceeds to discuss how believers are to consider themselves dead to sin and alive to God, because they have died with Christ and were raised with him (6:4–11).

There are also certain passages where the forensic-transformative order is evident. In Philippians 3 Paul says he above all wants to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness through the law, but “that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9). This foundational need for justifying righteousness is followed by Paul’s desire to share in Christ’s power and sufferings, and his present experience of “straining forward to what lies ahead” (3:10, 13). Returning to Romans 5, Paul says that having been justified, we have peace with God through Christ (5:1) and have also obtained access “by faith into this grace in which we stand” (5:2). Forensic justification is the entry point into the believer’s experience of suffering, endurance, and spiritual growth (5:3–5).

Lastly, there are instances within the typical indicative/imperative structure of Paul’s letters where he evidently gives primacy to the forensic aspect of Christ’s work for believers. First Timothy starts with imperatives regarding false teaching and supplications for all men. The key indicative, the ground for Paul’s instructions for holy living, is: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5–6). Similarly, Ephesians 1–4 is the extended indicative section that underlies the imperatives in Ephesians 5–6. At the beginning of the letter, Paul says we have been blessed with “every spiritual blessing” in Christ and chosen in him to be “holy and blameless” (Eph 1:3–4). And the first blessing that Paul then highlights is forensic in nature: “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph 1:7).

3.2. Union with Christ

Some may argue that ascribing priority to either the forensic or the transformative aspects of Paul’s soteriology is misguided because union with Christ is a more fundamental category that undergirds them both. Moo comments that union is “a key (perhaps the key) idea” in Galatians. By it we can keep the forensic nature of justification from being confused with the transformative element while holding that the two are “inseparable but distinct effects of our union with Christ.”54 Gaffin goes somewhat further, calling union by faith the “essence of Paul’s ordo salutis.” While not losing sight of the centrality of justification and imputation to Paul’s gospel, Gaffin argues that union is “a reality that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial” from which flows the simultaneous benefits of justification and sanctification.55 Although Constantine Campbell disagrees that union is the “center” of Paul’s theology, he proposes that it is a “metatheme” and “web” that holds together diverse Pauline ideas and concerns. Justification ought, in this regard, to be understood as the believer’s participation in Christ’s vindication and righteousness, which is received through union.56

Gaffin and Campbell are surely correct that justification cannot be abstracted from the basis of justification, which is Christ himself. As noted above, Paul says our justification is ἐν Χριστῷ. Still, if we affirm the Westminster Larger Catechism’s statement that justification, adoption, and sanctification “manifest” our union with Christ, and those benefits are distinct from one another, then union itself is multifaceted.57 Reformed theologians have thus distinguished between union’s decretal, federal/legal, historical, and vital/existential aspects.58 I would argue that, in Paul’s thinking, the legal (i.e., forensic) aspect of union precedes the existential dimension. We see this priority in the Adam-Christ parallel in Romans 5:12–21. Those in Adam share in his trespass and guilt by virtue of a federal/legal union, just as those in legal union with Christ share in his obedience and righteousness. The transgression of Adam brought judgment on many, leading to condemnation and death. On the other hand, the obedience of Christ leads to justification and life for many.59 It is after Paul explains the forensic relationship and its consequences that he then discusses the transformative implications of being united to Christ in his death and resurrection in Romans 6. The interpretation of Galatians 2:17–20 offered above similarly gives primary attention to the legal unity between Christ and the believer.

We should moreover recognize that vital union finds its basis in decretal and federal union. John Owen asserts in this connection that the “first spring or cause of this [vital] union, and of all the other causes, lies in that eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son.” Owen says that in the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to be the “surety” for his people, meaning one who is “just and legally to answer what is due to them, or from them.”60 Based on Owen’s observations, we may rightly say that our vital/present union with Christ itself derives from the legal unity established in the pactum salutis. This suggests that even within our conception of union with Christ, precedence should be given to its legal dimension.

3.3. Paul’s Redemptive-Historical Perspective

Salvation history is another key component of Paul’s theology that surfaces in Galatians 2:17–20 and figures more prominently later in the epistle. Death to the law and new life by faith-union with Christ signals a decisive in-breaking of the eschatological age. This is evident in the implied reference to Christ’s resurrection in Galatians 2:20, as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 3:2.61 As noted in part 2, several commentators see a topical shift in verses 19–20 from justification to the transformative new existence of the believer, the new state that coincides with the transition from the age characterized by the law to the age characterized by faith. Paul’s further exposition of salvation history in Galatians 3, however, does not revolve around the renovative and subjective, experiential aspects of the new age. Rather, he continues to address forensic issues. Among other points, he asserts that the curse of the law was borne by Christ (3:13); explains the purpose of the law, which was to reveal transgressions and anticipate Christ’s coming (3:19, 23); and proves from the OT that the blessing of Abraham is promised to all who believe, that they also might be justified by faith (3:24). Justification is also surely in view in another critical redemptive-historical text, Galatians 4:4–5, which says that God sent forth his Son “in the fullness of time … born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.”

Gaffin rightly comments that justification “is not vaguely theological” but intelligible only in terms of the Abrahamic covenant and fulfillment by the Seed—in other words, within a redemptive-historical framework.62 Yet we should not allow salvation history to obscure Paul’s main theological concern in Galatians, which is about human inability to attain right standing before God apart from the gracious work of Christ. To go backwards in redemptive history is to return to slavery under the “weak and worthless elementary principles of the world” and identify with the “present Jerusalem” rather than the “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:9, 25). And this is to be severed from Christ, fallen away from grace, and obligated to keep the law in its entirety for justification (5:4–5). On the other hand, to be justified by faith in Christ is to have the eschatological vindication of the righteous brought forward into the present, so that we “eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness” (5:5).63 Within the epistle, Paul’s arguments from salvation history function to explain and buttress, rather than supersede, his foreground issue of justification and the thesis he puts forward thereon in Galatians 2:15–21.

There is, moreover, within the structure of the historia salutis a forensic-transformative order. Commenting on Galatians 3:13–14, J. V. Fesko says, “One should note how the outpouring of the Spirit hinges (see Paul’s use of the hina clause) upon the legal-forensic work of Christ.”64 Deeply embedded within the events of salvation history is the forensic nature of Christ’s person and work—namely, his undertaking, as Owen says, to act as our surety and legal representative—which is the presupposition of the transformative work of the Spirit. Moreover, because justification discounts any human merit and looks solely to the grace of God and the work of Christ, prioritizing the forensic within the historia salutis underscores Paul’s foundational redemptive-historical principle that salvation is monergistic; it is divine work from beginning to end. So even as we recognize the importance of the transformative in Paul’s redemptive-historical outlook, we should not miss his fundamental perspective that God’s work for us precedes and forms the basis for his work in us.

3.4. Justification and Sanctification

Vos notes that the resurrection is, next to the cross, “the outstanding event of redemptive history,” and that in the resurrection two strands of Paul’s theology expose themselves—the forensic (justification) and the transformative (regeneration and sanctification).65 As discussed above, union with Christ precludes the separation of justification and sanctification while preserving their distinction. Not all would agree, however, that within union one of these benefits holds priority over the other. Gaffin, for example, asserts that in Paul’s mind union should be given priority, citing Calvin’s concept of the duplex gratia from Institutes 3.11.1 in which being united to Christ simultaneously results in the imputation of his righteousness and renovative/transformative grace.66 For Vos, however, the “forensic principle is supreme and keeps in subordination to itself the transforming principle.” In this regard, the resurrection shows the forensic principle to be the “deeper principle”; for from the justification of Christ at the resurrection springs the “supreme fruit” of the Spirit who in turn “bears in Himself the efficacious principle of all transformation to come.”67

While the temporal precedence of justification vis-à-vis progressive sanctification seems generally accepted,68 the logical priority of justification to definitive sanctification is a more disputed claim. Specifically, the following objections might be raised. First, justification and sanctification are both by faith, which unites us to Christ and his benefits. How, then, can either be “prior” in any sense? Moreover, if regeneration, which is renovative, is prior to faith, how can the forensic principle have priority over the transformative principle without endangering the Reformed doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone)?

These are legitimate contentions. Yet I think the distinction between objective and subjective justification offers a solid response.69 According to Herman Witsius (1636–1708), this distinction was “well known” during his time. The former refers to God’s declaration of “having received satisfaction from Christ, and pronounces, that all the elect are made free from guilt and obligation to punishment, even before their faith” while the latter is the “acknowledgment … intimated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit” and follows faith.70 Louis Berkhof likewise says objective justification refers to God’s declaration that a sinner is righteous based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, whereas subjective justification is the reception and application of that benefit by faith. Thus, “active [objective] justification logically precedes faith and passive [subjective] justification. We believe the forgiveness of sins.”71 Similarly, Herman Bavinck holds that objective justification is the forensic declaration of God pronounced in the resurrection of Christ, and this justification is subjectively accepted in faith. The former is the legal verdict, which occurs in the proclamation of the gospel and the effectual internal call of God therein, and logically precedes the latter, which is its “acceptance and possession.”72 Properly understood, then, justification in the purely objective, forensic sense is prior even to faith, and therefore to subjective justification and definitive sanctification. This seems consistent with Westminster Confession of Faith 11.1, which says that God justifies the elect, “by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith.” In other words, the elect are subjectively justified when faith receives (and faith is itself a gift based upon) the preceding objective work of Christ and his imputed righteousness. We also see this same order in Galatians 2:17–20, for Christ was crucified and raised to life for the believer, and this is the basis for the believer’s identification with Christ in terms of death to the law and life to God by faith.

Moreover, to frame the relationship between justification and sanctification in the way that Vos does—that the forensic is the deeper, superior principle—is theologically helpful for several other reasons. First, maintaining the priority of the forensic reminds us that the sole cause and foundation of our salvation is the grace of God and the objective and external redemptive work of Christ for his people in history. We must always distinguish redemption accomplished from redemption applied so that no one may boast (Eph 2:9), not even in the fruit wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, lest human works overshadow and empty the cross of its meaning, as Galatians 2:21 warns us. Second, the eschatological dimension of justification safeguards assurance and refutes the notion that there is a “future justification” based on the believer’s sanctification that is different from “present justification.” Commenting on Romans 8:33–34, Vos says that Paul’s claim regarding the believer’s justification is “so absolute as to be indifferent to categories of present, past or future.”73 Third, being justified in Christ means participating in his justification-resurrection, which guarantees the believer’s future bodily resurrection and inclusion in God’s final transformative salvific act—namely, our glorification.74 Knowing our ultimate identity and goal moreover furnishes the believer with the strongest motivation to pursue holiness in the fear of God.

4. Conclusion

The overall purpose of this essay has been to demonstrate the forensic orientation of Paul’s thinking and its function as the “deeper principle” within the apostle’s theology.75 This began with an examination of Galatians 2:17–20, wherein I set forth an interpretation that maintains Paul’s focus on justification throughout verses 15–21. Paul’s thesis and argument certainly extends into matters of redemptive-history and the new experiential life of the believer. Within the passage, however, these concerns are subsidiary to Paul’s primary emphasis on the legal dimension of Christ’s death and life for the believer, which is central to the “truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14).

Maintaining the integrity of the gospel is, in the final analysis, the reason for ascribing primacy and prominence to the forensic principle in Paul’s soteriology and our own. Doing so upholds the grace of God, confesses total human inability, appreciates the exactness of God’s justice, and proclaims the full sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and righteousness. It directs us to first look outward to Jesus for the assurance of our salvation rather than inward to our own efforts, even to the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. For whatever is in us should never in our theology, our life, or our ministry overshadow the perfect work of the Son of God “who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). Let us therefore not boast in anything, whether our baptism, our works, or even our faith, but rather “in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14).

---

1 Scholars dispute the relationship between Galatians and the council. For an overview of the different positions and arguments in favor of an “early” date, see Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 8–18; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 41–56.
2 Moo, Galatians, 52–53.
3 Douglas J. Moo, “Justification in Galatians” in Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D.A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 165. See also, Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 155–57; Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 138.
4 Moo, Galatians, 52–53.
5 This essay will adopt “agitators” as the term for Paul’s opponents, following several of the commentators cited herein.
6 Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 7–9; Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 112–13.
7 Schreiner, Galatians, 50.
8 Moo, Galatians, 22.
9 Moo, Galatians, 59–60; Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, 114–18.
10 Schreiner, Galatians, 151.
11 See the discussion of verse 17 below regarding other views of Gal 2:15.
12 J. B. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, 2nd ed. (Andover, MA: Draper, 1870), 242. Cf. Moo, Galatians, 156. According to Moo, Paul uses this “traditional” Jewish designation “only to debunk it.”
13 The phrase ἐὰν μὴ should be translated as “but” indicating an antithetical either/or relationship. See Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, 115.
14 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 140.
15 Moo, Galatians, 154.
16 Moo, Galatians, 59–60; J. Gresham Machen, Notes on Galatians, ed. John H. Skilton, reprint ed. (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006), 156, 161.
17 Further to Paul’s statements in his other epistles, especially Romans, for a sinner to be justified, there must be forgiveness and atonement for sin, as well as the conferring or imputation of righteousness as a gift (see Rom 4:7–8; 5:16–18).
18 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 147.
19 Cf. Rom 13:4 where the civil authority is the διάκονος of God, appointed to carry out his purposes.
20 See, e.g., Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 141.
21 Paul uses the same rhetorical structure in Gal 2:21: “for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” Cf. Machen, Notes on Galatians, 149.
22 Schreiner, Galatians, 154, 168.
23 See Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 141; Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, 242–244.
24 For a similar analysis of Gal 3:21 see Moises Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 188.
25 The converse of this conditional statement is what Paul expresses in Gal 2:16—if it is true that faith in Christ justifies, then it is false that one is justified by works of the law.
26 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 683.
27 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 142.
28 Schreiner, Galatians, 170.
29 Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 174.
30 See especially Gal 3:10–14, 21–22.
31 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 143.
32 Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, 123.
33 Fung, Epistle to the Galatians, 119.
34 BDAG s.v. “παραδίδωμι.” See also Rom 4:25; 8:32.
35 Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 209, 216.
36 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 143.
37 Schreiner, Galatians, 171.
38 Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians, 144.
39 Lightfoot, Epistle to the Galatians, 246.
40 John Calvin, Commentary on The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, Calvin’s Commentaries 21 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 74. Calvin, however, expresses his willingness to adopt the view that sanctification (“regeneration”) is also contemplated.
41 For example, that new life under the power and control of Christ is manifest in Paul. See the comments above regarding Bruce’s and Lightfoot’s interpretations.
42 BDAG, s.v. “ ἐν.”
43 Harris, Prepositions, 120–21.
44 D. A. Carson, “An Apostolic Disputation and Justification,” The Gospel Coalition, 18 August 2023, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/sermon/an-apostolic-disputation-and-justification/. Carson notes that this reading is not unique to him.
45 Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 175. Silva says that although the language of resurrection is not used “the concept is implicit and inescapable.”
46 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.16.13.
47 Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, reprint ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 151–52.
48 Richard B. Gaffin Jr., By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 97.
49 Carson, “An Apostolic Disputation and Justification.”
50 Moo, Galatians, 170.
51 See the discussion of ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ above.
52 Geerhardus Vos, “The Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification,” The Princeton Theological Review 1.2 (1903): 162. https://commons.ptsem.edu/id/princetontheolog1219arms-dmd002.
53 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 163.
54 Moo, Galatians, 155.
55 Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight, 49.
56 Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 404–5, 412–14, 441–42.
57 Westminster Larger Catechism Q69.
58 See, e.g., Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 2:520–21, 2:551, 3:104, 3:127; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 448–50; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 481–89. Gaffin himself recognizes within the concept of union a “threefold categorical distinction” in terms of God’s decree, past redemptive-history, and the present experience. See Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight, 42–43. Cf. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 406–14. Campbell gives a shorthand definition of union as “union, participation, identification, incorporation” (p. 414) that, conceptually, includes mystical, mediatorial, eschatological, and other dimensions.
59 For an analysis of the forensic significance of this passage, see Ridderbos, Paul, 95–99.
60 John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, reprint ed. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2006), 202, 205.
61 Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, 45–47, 57–59; see also, Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 175.
62 Richard B. Gaffin Jr., In the Fullness of Time: An Introduction to the Biblical Theology of Acts and Paul (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 275.
63 See, e.g., Vos, Pauline Eschatology, 57–58; Ridderbos, Paul, 162–64; Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight, 92.
64 J. V. Fesko, Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 90.
65 Vos, Pauline Eschatology, 147–48.
66 Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes, ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), 268–69; see also By Faith, Not by Sight, 59. Cf. Gaffin, In the Fullness of Time, 395. Because sanctification is ongoing over time, Gaffin says “justification is the absolute necessary and settled precondition for sanctification (though not its source or cause, as some argue).” Based on this quote, it appears that Gaffin recognizes the priority of justification vis-à-vis progressive sanctification.
67 Vos, Pauline Eschatology, 151.
68 See John Murray, Redemption, Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 144–50.
69 This discussion is indebted to the research and analysis of Jae-Eun Park, “Driven by God: Active Justification and Definitive Sanctification in the Soteriology of Bavinck, Comrie, Witsius, and Kuyper” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2016), 3, 90–94, 145–50, 215.
70 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man 2.7.16.
71 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 517.
72 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 4:219–220; The Wonderful Works of God, trans. Henry Zylstra, reprint ed. (Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 440. See also, Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 2:684–685. It must be noted that both Bavinck and Berkhof emphasize that objective and subjective justification cannot be separated—their distinction is logical rather than temporal, and the objective must find its realization when it is subjectively received by faith. See Park, “Driven by God,” 90–94.
73 Vos, Pauline Eschatology, 151.
74 Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 170.
75 See the quotations of Vos above.

---