Commentary on Galatians (33)

As mentioned, we agree with commentators that verse 17 does not represent an objection that Peter leveled against Paul. This is because the objection amounts to a rejection of the very gospel that Peter himself preached and believed, but he is here charged with hypocrisy and not consistency. That is, Peter behaved in a way that contradicted the true gospel, which means that he continued to affirmed the true gospel. The objection is posed as a rhetorical question, which Paul proceeds to answer himself.

If the word "sinners" is used in the same sense as it is in verse 15, then it is not mainly referring to sinners in a broad sense, but in the narrower sense, as in those who do not follow Jewish laws and customs. Thus the objection is that if Christ instructs men to stop observing the law, then it seems to follow that Christ encourages them to sin. The doctrine of justification by faith, therefore, permits Gentiles to remain as "sinners," and even Jews to become the same.

An extension of this objection would be the charge that justification by faith promotes antinomianism, or lawlessness, and licentiousness. In other words, the charge is that if we preach that a man is made righteous before God solely because of the work of Christ, then this appears to permit, if not encourage, a complete abandonment of all human effort to live in a holy and moral manner. It would seem that the man could continue in sin, if not become even more sinful, and still be saved.

Ryken says, "This is a fair question," but Paul seems to think otherwise when he answers with an indignant "Absolutely not!" We must never compliment any question or objection that "sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), and that challenges God's rationality or righteousness. Cursed be all non-Christian standards of social propriety and rules of interaction, if they forbid us to reprimand unbelief, when appropriate, with fierceness and authority. Our first concern is not to appear polite and respectable by the world's standard, but to represent our God in righteousness and with all boldness.

Elsewhere when Paul anticipates an objection to the doctrine of election, he does not say, "This is a good question" or even "I am glad you asked that." Instead, he writes, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Romans 9:20). Because God is perfectly rational and righteous, and the very standard and definition of such, all questions and objections against what God has revealed are necessarily irrational and unrighteous. There is no such thing as a fair, good, or rational challenge against Christianity. Rather, all such questions and objections must necessarily be stupid and sinful. This does not mean that we avoid answering them – the point is that we must not honor that which is stupid and sinful because we cater to a non-Christian standard for conversation and debate.

Paul proceeds, then, to address this ridiculous, irrational, and irreverent question. Again, the objection is whether we make Christ a promoter of sin when we abandon the works of the law as a way to be justified before God, so that we become "sinners" by the standards of Jewish laws and customs, if not godless and lawless sinners altogether (v. 17). But Paul replies that it is to rebuild what he has destroyed – that is, the legalistic way of life, and to seek justification by observing the law – that would prove him to be a lawbreaker (v. 18). "The real sinner is the one who is justified and then returns to the law. Ironically, that person is actually a lawbreaker. People under the law are more precisely described as lawbreakers than as law-keepers!" This is because such a person cannot in fact keep the law, and also because by reinstating the law, he sins by renouncing and working against the gospel of Christ.

He continues, "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God" (v. 19). Paul realized through the law that he was a sinner and that he was unable to justify himself by observing the law. So he learned through the law that he must abandon the law as the way to obtain justification before God. One function of the law, therefore, is to point away from itself as the way to justification – it was never given for justification (3:21) – partly by causing those under it to despair of their own efforts to follow it. Thus Paul writes, "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (3:24; also 4:1-5). Paul died to the law as a way of life, as a way of justification, or obtaining righteousness with God.

There is another sense in which Paul died to the law through the law that is probably even more meaningful in the context of this passage (v. 15-21). The law's demand for perfect obedience is accompanied by the penalty of death for failing to follow it. Thus when Paul failed to render perfect obedience to the law, even a single infraction earned for him the ultimate punishment. However, as he will proceed to announce, the curse of the law was nailed to the cross with Christ as he, though without sin, took upon himself the punishment against sinners. As Paul has been chosen by God and united with Christ through faith, as far as the law was concerned, when Christ was crucified, Paul was crucified with him. And because the death penalty of the law has already been carried out against Paul in Christ, he has died to the law and severed his former obligation to it (Romans 7:2-4). Now there is nothing else the law can do against him. And thus through the law, he died to the law.