What does Paul mean by “sinners”?

Explanation:

Paul asks if in his endeavour to seek Christ he is found to be a sinner, is Christ a servant of sin? In Greek, Paul has constructed this question as a first-class conditional. A first-class conditional is an if/then statement. Paul is asking, If x happens, then does z follow? We can classify the parts of a first-class conditional as protasis and apodosis.⁴ The protasis makes up the if aspect of the conditional, and the apodosis comprises the then aspect. When an author uses a first-class conditional, the assumption is that the protasis is true.⁵ In other words, if x is true, then does z follow? In the case of Galatians 2:17 there are two components to the protasis.⁶ Paul says, if in our endeavour to seek justification in Christ (x), we are found to be sinners (y)… Both x and y are components of the protasis, so we should assume, for the sake of argument, that they are true. Paul’s purpose here is to explain what happens if someone places their faith in Christ for justification, and yet ends up sinning. If (x) and (y), then is Christ a servant of sin (z)? Paul answers with an adamant no!

Counterargument:

While it is true that the first-class conditional assumes the truth of the protasis for the sake of argument, this does not mean that Paul uses the term sinner in a legal sense. Rather, it might be that Paul uses the term as a label for someone who lives outside the Mosaic law. We know that Peter ate with the Gentiles, which was against the Mosaic law. This made Peter like a Gentile sinner. Just because Peter was found by the Judaizers to be a like a Gentile sinner by eating with the Gentiles, does this make Christ a servant of sin? Paul answers no! In other words, the construction of the Greek does not imply a legal view of sinner, but only that Paul assumes the truth of the protasis, whatever the term sinner means in this context.

Response to counterargument:

While we cannot rule out the notion that Paul uses sinner in Galatians 2:17 as a label for something like Gentile sinner, this is unlikely. First, we have the first-class conditional, which Paul uses with skilled effect. Paul seems to anticipate or respond to the serious objection that if Christ is the Lord of sinners, he seems to be a servant of sin. The first-class conditional, with Paul’s adamant reply (Certainly not!), testifies to the seriousness of Paul’s point here. Added to this, it is important to note that Paul uses the term sinners in Galatians 2:17, and not Gentile sinners (Galatians 2:15). While it might be that Gentile sinners was used to label the Gentiles, the term sinners also refers to falling short of God’s commands.⁷ If Paul wanted us to associate the term in Galatians 2:17 with the label Gentile sinner, then we should expect for Paul to use that phrase again in Galatians 2:17.

Explanation:

To understand what Paul means by sinner in Galatians 2:17, it is important to look at Paul’s whole argument from Galatians 2:15 to Galatians 2:17. First, he points out that he is a Jew by birth and not a Gentile sinner. Still, he explains, he seeks justification not through the law but through faith in Christ. Now he asks if, in his endeavour to be justified by Christ, he too is found to be a sinner, that makes Christ a servant of sin. Here, Paul seems to have more than mere labels in mind. For Jews, the purpose of the law was to prevent unholy behaviour. The law was not a merely a list of customs but was meant to show Jews how to live before a holy God.⁸ Thus, a sinner was more than a label for someone who did not uphold customs like Jewish dietary restrictions. It was used to denote someone who fell short of God’s commands. With this understanding in mind, we can see that Paul responds to a legitimate concern from the Judaizers. If followers of Christ have no law, what is to prevent them from sinning so that Christ is a servant of sin? For now, Paul answers that Christ is not a servant of sin, and he will go on to explain that the solution to sinful living is not the law, but the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:19; Galatians 5:13–26).⁹

Counterargument:

It’s good to look at the immediate literary context, but we also have to consider Paul’s argument within the broader literary context. In other words, if we look further outward, we can see that Galatians 2:15–17 fits within the larger argument that begins around Galatians 2:11. Cephas (Peter) has been eating with the Gentiles, and in the eyes of certain Jewish sects, this makes Cephas a sinner.¹⁰ Paul’s argument is that while it is true that Cephas is a sinner under the Jewish criteria that to eat with a Gentile is to be a sinner, still this does not make Christ a servant of sin. Thus, by considering the broader context we can see that Paul has a particular Jewish label of what constitutes a sinner and not legal sin.

Response to counterargument:

Expanding our view from the immediate to broader literary context only solidifies the fact that Paul has more than labels in mind. Paul’s concern throughout the letter is to show that faith in Christ is what justifies the sinner, not works of the law (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 3:11–12). Paul will go on to explain that the purpose of the law brings a curse because no one is able to keep the whole law (Galatians 3:10). This implies much more than dietary and circumcision requirements; it implies the whole Mosaic law. He also explains that the purpose of the law was to expose sin and direct people toward Christ (Galatians 3:21–22). It’s hard to see why falling short of dietary restrictions would compel anyone toward Christ. Thus, Paul seems to have legal sin and guilt in mind.

The problem with this view is that we know that Jews referred to Gentiles as sinners, and Paul used the term Gentile sinner as a label for Gentile just a moment ago. This lends to the notion that Paul has in mind a label, and not legal sin. Still, Paul’s theological point seems to run much deeper than mere labels.

Explanation:

We can find out what Paul means by sinners in Galatians 2:17 by looking back to Galatians 2:15.¹⁴ In Galatians 2:15 Paul contrasts those who are Jewish by birth with ἔθνων ἁμαρτωλοί (Gentile sinners). It was well-known that Jews considered those outside the covenant to be Gentile sinners.¹⁵ So when Paul uses the term Gentile sinners in Galatians 2:15 he means something like, those who maintain their relationship with God on the basis of the Mosaic law. With this definition of sinner in mind, we can see what Paul means in Galatians 2:17. Paul says that by seeking justification in Christ, he is no longer seeking justification through the law. This means he is a sinner in the mind of the Judaizers.¹⁶

Counterargument:

The notion that Paul uses the term sinner in Galatians 2:15 as a label for those who are outside the Mosaic law might be the case, but Paul seems to have something more than a label in mind in Galatians 2:17. We can draw this conclusion from the end of Galatians 2:17, where Paul asks if Christ is a servant of sin. For, if Paul simply uses the term sinner as a label for those who are outside the Mosaic law, then Christ is a servant of sin in the sense that Christ is a servant of those who are outside the Mosaic law. This is precisely why neither Peter nor the Galatians are required to uphold Jewish customs such as circumcision, and dietary restrictions. Of course, we do not find Paul answer in the affirmative whether Christ is a servant of sin. Instead, he answers with the adamant certainly not! If Paul had simple labels in mind, we should expect him to answer in the affirmative. In other words, if by sinner Paul means those who are outside the Mosaic law, we can paraphrase Paul in the following way: If after seeking to be justified in Christ we are found to eat with Gentiles, does this make Christ a servant to Gentiles? Absolutely!

Response to counterargument:

It’s important to see that Paul’s point is more subtle than the suggestion that sinner is a simple label for those outside the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law was not a matter of custom with no real implication for the Jews. Rather, the Mosaic law is what kept one from sinning, and falling outside the covenant of God. For a Jew, without the Mosaic law, there was nothing to keep a person from living a sinful lifestyle, so that actual sin was sure to follow.¹⁷ Thus, Gentiles were not a label sinners simply because they did not have the Mosaic law, but because without the Mosaic law, they were sure to sin. With this in mind we can see that Paul answers a genuine objection in Galatians 2:17 when he asks if Christ is a servant of sin. From a Jew’s perspective, the law of God is meant to prevent sin, so that to abandon God’s law will lead to a sinful lifestyle. Thus, encouraging the Gentiles not to obey the Mosaic law encourages them to sin, making Christ a servant of sin. It is this objection that Paul seeks to answer in Galatians 2:18–19.

Explanation:

Paul asks Peter a rhetorical question that he knows Peter will find objectionable. He asks, if we are found to be sinners, that is, if we live as those who do not have the Mosaic law, does that make Christ a servant of sin? Paul asks the question because he knows that Peter will reflect on Jesus’ ministry and remember that Christ often enjoyed fellowship with sinners (Mark 2:16; Luke 7:34). Paul’s point is that Christ would surely have fellowship with the so-called Gentile sinners who do not follow the Mosaic law, but this would not make Christ a sinner.¹⁸ Likewise, Peter and the others should have no problem eating with the Gentile Galatians who do not follow the Mosaic law.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the simple past tense and passive voice of the verb to find. Paul says that if in their endeavour to seek Christ, they were found to be sinners, does this make Christ a servant of sin? The verb to find has a legal connotation, which has to do with one’s actual standing before God.¹⁹ Thus, Paul does not use the term sinner to denote someone outside the Mosaic law, but he uses it to denote someone who stands indicted as a sinner before God. The real question Paul aims to answer is, If after seeking to be justified in Christ, he is indicted as an actual sinner, does this make Christ a servant of an actual sinner?

Response to counterargument:

The verb to find does not have to be taken in a legal sense. In fact, the verb is used on many occasions in the New Testament, and oftentimes a legal sense is far from view. For example, in Matthew 1:18 we read that Mary is found to be with child. And in Matthew 2:8 the wise men are to search for the child, and when they have found him, they are to report to Herod. In neither of these cases is the verb εὑρίσκω used in a legal sense, and there are countless other examples in the New Testament. Thus, the verb itself does not carry any legal meaning, which means we need to determine the verb’s connotation based on the context. Based on the context, we could take the verb in a legal sense or not.

The problem with this view is that when Paul uses a label to differentiate between the ethnic Jews and Gentiles, he does not simply refer to the Gentiles as sinners but Gentile sinners. There is a vast difference between being characterized as one who stands outside God’s covenant and is therefore by default a sinner, and one who is a sinner by actually sinning. Given that Paul is discussing complex theological insights, such as justification before God based on the law, or faith in Christ, we should expect that Paul is being careful about his use of terms. Thus, it’s likely that if Paul’s point is to show that by not participating in circumcision and dietary laws, one is essentially a Gentile, we should expect him to use the term Gentile sinner rather than simply sinner.