Commentary on Galatians (30)

This in turn means that we can infer a broader contrast than the immediate context presents. That is, the contrast is not only against justification by observing the law of Moses, but by observing any law or ethic (Romans 9:11-12, 16; Titus 3:5). In other words, the contrast is between justification by works and justification by faith. Although it is important to keep in mind that the "law" in this letter mainly refers to Jewish laws and customs, it is legitimate and necessary to make this wider application of the principle. More will be said in support of this in a moment.

This is something that the Gentiles need to hear in the context of this controversy. They are already believers in Jesus Christ, but now the Judaizers tell them that they must also observe Jewish laws and customs, including circumcision. Paul points out that even those who are Jews by birth must themselves turn from reliance on their own works to faith in Jesus Christ in order to be justified. He writes, "by observing the law no one will be justified." This could be an allusion to Psalm 143:2, offering one indication that the law itself testifies that no one can stand righteous before God if judged according to his own effort to follow the law.

As Paul writes elsewhere, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe" (Romans 3:20-22). The law is not a plan that has failed, to be replaced by faith. Rather, it has never been its function to justify anyone at all, only that by it "we become conscious of sin," and "so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God" (Romans 3:19). The Law and the Prophets themselves testify to a righteousness from God that comes "apart from law," but it "comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Then in verse 21, Paul makes the statement, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" The idea here is not that Christ's death would be "useless" (NCV), as in ineffectual, but that it would be unnecessary (NLT: "there was no need"). Again, keep in mind that Paul is dealing with professing Christians, so that he is not responding to a direct attack against Christ. The necessity of Christ's work is here assumed, and once assumed, it is evident that it is incompatible with the idea that righteousness could be gained through the law. If righteousness could be gained through the law, then one must deny the necessity of Christ's work. In other words, if men could achieve righteousness before God by their own effort to observe the law, then it would have been unnecessary for Christ to come and die for them in order to win that which they could have obtained by their own effort.

Either Christ's death is insufficient or unnecessary, or it is impossible to obtain righteousness through the law. To say this another way, one who preaches righteousness through the law is compelled to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ's redemptive work. And by definition, to deny the sufficiency and necessity of Christ makes one a non-Christian. Thus it follows that the Judaizers were in reality non-Christians. They preached a non-gospel, an anti-Christian message. Therefore, having already believed on the gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by Paul, the Galatians had no reason to accept the Judaizers' message.

There is a broader principle that stands behind verse 21. The current controversy concerns works and faith, law and Christ, and that is the contrast presented in the verse. The established assumption here is the necessity of Christ's death. But this assumption excludes not only the possibility of attaining righteousness through the law; rather, if it is held constant, it must exclude every other method of attaining righteousness. This is because if there is any other way of attaining righteousness, Christ's death would have been unnecessary. If salvation can come any other way, then Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary. But since Christ's death was indeed necessary to save men, this means that it is impossible to attain righteousness through any other means. Therefore, it follows that verse 21 is a condemnation against, not only the attempt to attain righteousness through observing Jewish laws and customs, but any other system of law, ethic, philosophy, or religion.