I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now life in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 NIV)
Having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. (Col 2:14 NIV)
It is common for Protestants to cite these two passages from the Pauline corpus to support their understanding of the nature of justification. These passages are used to “prove” that (1) justification is purely forensic and (2) our past, present, and even then-future sins are forgiven at justification. However, both these conclusions are based on eisegesis.
Gal 2:20
As for Gal 2:20, one should firstly read the entire pericope (vv.16-20) to understand the entire context:
Here is the NRSV translation:
Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:16-20)
The entire pericope is centred on the concept of the believer's participation in Christ's atoning sacrifice (cf. Col 1:24) and how it is by faith (not "faith alone"[!]) in Him that justifies; not the Law of Moses. As for v.20 (v.19 in some translations), many Protestants beg the question as to when a believer is "crucified with Christ" (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι). For them, one has been (salvifically) united with Christ either in the eternal past and/or at the cross. However, this is to wrench the entire phrase out of its own immediate context; notice what follows, "nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." This cannot be said of any person, elect or reprobate, prior to their being justified.
Furthermore, when does a believer become united with Christ? When one examines the entirety of Paul's own epistles, we learn that it is by water baptism:
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-30)
In Gal 3:27, one is said to be “baptised into Christ” (εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε) and speaks of one “putting on” or “being clothed in” Christ (Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε), all language of a salvific union of a believer with Christ through the instrumentality of water baptism. Such flies in the face of much of modern (and historical) Protestantism.
Another related text would be Rom 6:1-4 (exegeted in detail here, here, here, and here):
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Again, water baptism is the instrumental means of this salvific union with Christ, not faith alone.
Indeed, Gal 3:1 seems to offer further support for this exegesis:
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
The term translated as "set forth" in the KJV (ESV: "publicly portrayed"; NRSV: "publicly exhibited"; NIV: "clearly portrayed") is the verb προεγράφη and means "to write before." Of course, one has to ask when was Christ publicly portrayed as crucified to the Galatians, or, "set forth in a public proclamation" (per BDAG)? Applying baptism as the relevant event (per Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:1-4) that allowed the Galatians to see Christ crucified with their own eyes makes perfect sense, as it is a sacramental re-enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, per Paul's theology thereof. The salvific efficacy of baptism answers Gal 2:20 and how and when the believer is indeed crucified with Christ in great potency.
Col 2:14
Firstly, we should note that, in his epistle to the Colossians, like his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, Paul teaches the salvific necessity of baptism; notice Col 2:12-13, which precede v.14(!):
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith and operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses. (see this blog post on the relationship between Col 2:12-13 and Eph 2:8-10)
This pericope, mirroring Rom 6:1-4, teaches that a believer is united and "buried with" Christ in baptism, and that is the instrumental means through which God the Father raises a believer, in the same manner, He raised His Son. This is paralleled in Col 3:10:
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.
The verb "to put on" is ενδουω, the same verb used by Paul in Gal 3:27 in the context of water baptism. Again, what is in view here is that one becomes a new creature through the instrumentality of water baptism, not faith alone a la historical and modern Protestantism.
Another important text to consider would be Col 1:23-24 (discussed here):
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.
As with a number of soteriological texts, the NIV obscures things due to the sola fide bias of its translators (see some of N.T. Wright's criticisms of the NIV here). The underlying Greek of the text reads:
ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ
The KJV rendering is:
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.
What is in view here is not the nailing of our sins (past, present, and even then-future) on the cross, á la many models of forensic atonement (read: Penal Substitution), but instead, the "ordinances" of the Law of Moses. The Greek term τοις δογμασιν means "the ordinances" and is coupled with χειρογραφων, referring to a written record of one's debts/sins under this division of the Law of Moses.
One has to realise that there were three divisions of the Law of Moses—the commandments, the statutes/ordinances, and judgements, and Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and resurrection abrogated the latter two divisions (which is in view in Col 2:14). As LDS scholar, John A. Tvedtnes notes:
To the Galatians, the apostle Paul wrote, "Wherefore then serveth the law [of Moses] it was added because of transgressions, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made" (Galatians 3:19; cf. Mosiah 3:14). This suggests that the carnal law, with which the Israelites were cursed according to Joseph Smith, was superimposed atop something else they had received from God--presumably something that was part of the higher law. Because the ten commandments are authoritatively cited as the word of God in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, they must be part of the higher law that remained under the covenant made at Sinai. They would therefore not be part of the lesser "handwriting of ordinances" of which Paul said that Christ "took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Colossians 2:14)
Christ told the Nephites, "in me is the law of Moses fulfilled" (3 Nephi 9:17; see also 3 Nephi 12:18-19; 15:4-5, 8). but he seems to have suggested that only the lesser portion of that law was fulfilled when he said, "Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the law is fulfilled" (3 Nephi 12:19). . . In order to understand this subject, we must note that the law of Moses was comprised of three division, the commandments (sometimes called "law" or "testimonies"), the statutes (sometimes called "ordinances"), and the judgments (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 13-14; 5:28; 6:20, 26; 26:17; 28:45; Kings 17:34, 37; 2 Chronicles 19:10; 29:19; 33:8; 34:31; Nehemiah 9:13-14; 10:30; Jeremiah 32:11) . . . [in Scripture] we learn that it was the statutes and judgments (or ordinances and performances) that would be done away in Christ, while the commandments would remain as part of the higher law that Christ revealed during his ministry. (The Most Correct Book: Insights from a Book of Mormon Scholar [Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 1999], 251-52).
One final issue to consider is Eph 2:15, the parallel text to Col 2:14, which reads:
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (δογματα); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.
Commenting on how Eph 2:15 helps us understand the meaning of “handwriting” (χειρογραφον) as being that of the Law of Moses, Allan R. Bevere noted:
[If] the ‘ascetic regulations’ of the Colossian philosophy are ethnically Jewish practices, as I and others maintain, then Ephesians 2:15 is indeed helpful in this matter. The writer of Ephesians does not use the term χειρογραφον, but it is the only other Pauline letter that employs δογματα as found in Colossians 2:14. In Ephesians, Christ’s death nullifies the Law together with its commandments and regulations. In Colossians, the χειρογραφον (the Law) with its regulations is erased as it is nailed to the cross of Christ. In Ephesians, the cross abolishes the Mosaic Law as a dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile; and while the language of division between Jew and Gentile is not explicit in Colossians, the χειρογραφον as a barrier that stands in the way is obvious – it is ‘against us’ (το καθ ημων) and ‘hostile to us’ (ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν). The imagery conveyed in both letters is so similar that it is not unreasonable to suggest that both refer to the same thing.
It would be even more significant if there were a common connection and a similar situation shared by the two letters. Ben Witherington argues at length for Pauline authorship of both Colossians and Ephesians based on, among other things, the Asiatic rhetorical style of both letters (Witherington, Colossians, 2). At the same time, there are rhetorical differences based on the different rhetorical situations occasioning each letter. Ephesians, unlike Colossians, reflects epideictic rhetoric, making it less an epistle and more of a homily characteristic of a document that is not addressed to one specific audience with a particular crisis. Instead Ephesians may be a circular in nature, mindful of a clear but larger geographical area where similar concerns of a wider community are generally at stake (Witherington, Colossians, 7 [cf. 215-17]). What is the significance of this for our concerns over the identification of the χειρογραφον?
First, while a minority of scholars question the arguments in favor of Colossian priority, most see an obvious connection between the two letters and Ephesians’ dependence on Colossians. As Margaret MacDonald observes, ‘Of all the letters in the Pauline corpus, no two works are so closely linked . . . Indeed, it seems that the author of Ephesians was very familiar with Colossians, drawing upon the epistle’s language, style, and concepts. In fact, more than one third of the words found in Colossians are also in Ephesians. For this reason alone it makes sense to study these two epistles together’ (MacDonald, Colossians, 4). Both epistles address household concerns as well as marriage. Ephesians, drawing upon Colossians expands on these concerns, addressing them to a more general audience. IT seems also to be the case that Ephesians does the same with the Law of Moses, expanding on it in language that reflects general concerns rather than the specific issues related to Colossians and the Law. If there is ambiguity of language at certain places in Colossians in reference to the Law, it is likely because of the specific nature of the problem the Colossians are having in relation to the Law. Much between writer and readers is assumed. If Ephesians is a circular letter, then less is assumed and terminology becomes more explicit in order for the letter to make sense to the readers of the various church communities. One of this denies the differences between the two letters. Nevertheless, the likelihood that Ephesians draws on Colossians also suggests a similarity of concerns, including the Law of Moses.
Second, if Witherington’s argument for Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians based upon its rhetoric (among other things) is strong, then one can envisage a situation in which Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians were written in an interconnected way. Dunn suggests that Paul’s personal concern for Onesimus may have prompted him to give direct attention to the letter he would write to Philemon while leaving the composition of Colossians to Timothy (Col. 1:1) (Dunn, Colossians, 40). It is conceivable as well that, given the situation in Colossae in which the target of the letter is the synagogue, Paul would have believed it important to write a more general composition reminding the Christians in Asia Minor of the inheritance that Jews and Gentiles share on account of the work of Christ. The significance of covenant problems related to the status of Gentiles, as views so prevalently in the New Testament, may have motivated Paul to commission a homily. It would not be inconceivable that Paul and Timothy drew on what was already written in Colossians, and expanded on it to create the letter now known to us as Ephesians. If Ephesians is the letter referred to in Colossians as ‘the letter from Laodicea’ (4;16), it may be that Laodicea was the document’s first stop, and Ephesus was the letter’s last place of public reading. This may explain why we know the letter today as ‘Ephesians.’ Given the clear relationship between Colossians and Ephesians, the Ephesian interest in the Law of Moses, if anything, moves us in the direction of affirming once again the case that the target of the letter to the Colossians is fundamentally Jewish. (Allan R. Bevere, “The Cheirograph in Colossians 2:14 and the Ephesian Connection,” in B.J. Oropeza, C.K. Robertson and Douglas C. Mohrmann, Jesus and Paul: Global Perspectives in Honor of James D.G. Dunn. A Festschrift for his 70th Birthday [Library of New Testament Studies 414; London: T&T Clark, 2009, 2019], 199-206, here, pp. 204-6)
When read contextually, and in light of the entirety of Paul’s soteriology, there is nothing in Gal 2:20 or Col 2:14 to support forensic models of justification and, furthermore, when one examines such texts contextually and exegetically, there is much to support Latter-day Saint soteriology. Yet again, in spite of the eisegesis-fuelled protestations of our Evangelical Protestant critics, “Mormonism” is indeed reflective of “biblical Christianity.”