Does Galatians 2:21 deny Righteousness?

Updated 5/13/2024

Note: This article escaped correction for a long time after I had changed my views on Penal Substitution, and was brought to my attention by a friend. The original article represented a different way of thinking that I now disagree with. As a result it is difficult to rescue the flow of thought in the article by means of repairs. Better thought flows with a blank document and completely new articles. So this article is largely rewritten, and also a good deal of stuff was deleted.

Abstract: If administration of justice is through what is customary then the Anointed One died needlessly. (Gal. 2:21, GNM 2022). Before and after Messiah came, Jewish tradition had an alternate way of gaining forgiveness of sins, other than simply repenting of it and asking God for forgiveness. The tradition resorted to the teaching of doing good works as a means of appeasing God, so that the good work would cancel out the sin. We may also render the text “For if justice is through the norm (or status quo) then Messiah died for nothing.” In this latter sense, Paul means that if salvation (forgiveness of and rescue from sin) is achieved by the norm, the status quo, or what is customary, then the instruction of Messiah's death is for nothing. Because his death instructs us that he bears our sin away. We need him to bear our sin away to be rescued from it. We need him to purge and cleanse our sin. We cannot take care of our sin problem, purge it, or cleanse it by gaining merits to take care of demerits. We need cleansing of our sin through the blood of Messiah. Physical blood, of course, does not take away sin. But what it represents, the Spirit of Life in Messiah, purges us from all sin. The cross is both a symbolic lesson and a close up of divine suffering endured from the time that sin entered the world until now by the Most High. It is a focal point of divine ransoming efforts for us. When Paul says that the death of Messiah is for nothing is merits pay for demerits, he means that this doctrine destroys the message of the cross. It destroys what we are supposed to learn from it.

Here are some anti-Law translations:

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (NIV).

I do not misapply God's grace, for if righteousness comes about by doing what the Law requires, then the Messiah died for nothing. (ISV).

I do not set aside the favour of Elohim, for if righteousness is through Torah, then Messiah died for naught (ISR).

I do not reject God's gracious gift; for if the way in which one attains righteousness is through legalism, then the Messiah's death was pointless (CJB).

Paul does not mean personal righteousness or righteous behavior according to the Law when he uses the term justice δικαιοσύνη. According to the BDAG Lexicon, 3rd edition, definition number 1, this word means justice. Paul is thinking of the method by which one gets favorable justice before God. In Paul's conception favorable justice means forgiveness of sins, and God's promise to purge us from all sin. In other words, a pardon followed by reform. In the conception of those whom he is rebuking, favorable justice was gained by earning merits to offset the demerits according to some prinicple of equity or exchange.

Now Paul uses the word νόμος in its full range of Greek meanings in his writings: custom, rule, principle, norm, usage, tradition, status quo, habit, law, Law. In this verse he means the custom or norm of making compensation for demerit by merit so that God will overlook the demerit because the extra merit compensates for it. In the broader sense, this doctrine was in many places the norm of Judaism. The doctrine is called Zechut in Jewish theology. The concept is mentioned quite a bit in Rabbinical Writings from the first four centuries of the Christian era.

Because of sin, favorable justice for the sinner is not compensatory. When the sinner repents he is forgiven, but his or her former wickedness is not paid for or compensated. Both a demand for retributive justice (final punishement) and reversal of the damages caused to God's creation by sin are forgiven. Forgiveness is a true act of charity, love, or grace by the Most High. He isn't paid for it. He does not vent his wrath on the offering. But he decides that wrath isn't called for if the person repents. In forgiveness, there is no expectation of judgment, nor should there be an expectation to pay it off. That attitude is not to receive it. And that attitude views God as unforgiving. God cannot be made whole again from his loss. But the past can be forgotten, and he promises not to remember the sins of the forgiven.

The cross teaches us that Messiah bears our sin. That is he suffers under it in order to purge us from it. It is our sin causing the suffering. It comes from us, and not from God. As for the sentencing we deserved while we were ungodly in our former life, he takes it with him to the grave, and leaves it there, nullified and cancelled out. This cancellation of the penalty or expiation of it or removal of it is not paying what we deserved. It is cancelling it.

There is no need for a positive imputation of righteousness in a forensic sense, because there is no way that the Most High can be compensated for sin. It does not actually repair the damages due to sin. Those he simply forgives in his mercy, and then he sanctifies us, giving his righteousness to us. This does not repair sin damage to those ultimately lost, but it does restore us who turn to Him. This righteousness we receive is not to be viewed as compensating God on an equitable basis. In view of sin, it can be no more than a consolation.

The reason the anti-Law Churches want righteousness to be “forensically imputed” is that they are viewing God as one who needs to be perfectly fully compensated for all sin in the equitable sense. In such a case forgiveness is not really forgiveness. All wrongs would be paid off, as if someone hit the big undo button (Ctrl-Z) in the universe and undid all the damage. That’s the net effect of having perfect righteousness legally stamped into the judicial balance sheet. God then sees no wrong, and no need to issue a guilty verdict. This, my friends, is not the gospel. It is pure legalism, and is as philosophically crass as those who would attempt to compensate God with their own works, via penance or the doctrine of Zechut.