A textual variant for Gal 2:20 presents a problem for interpreters. 

19 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ
συνεσταύρωμαι · 20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός · ὃ δὲ νῦν
ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ [τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ] τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με
καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ

It has been argued ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that the “God and Christ” reading, τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ, ought to be
adopted for a critical text of Galatians. 

Supposing that this is so, and that the “God and Christ” reading was indeed Paul’s intent, in what sense was Paul using the phrase “God and Christ”? Could it be that Paul was using the “God and Christ” language in the sense of ** you do not have permission to see this link **: “the king is addressed in the following remarkably exalted terms, as a God:

Your throne O God, endures forever and ever

              Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

You love righteousness and hate wickedness

              Therefore God, your God, has anointed you

                             With the oil of gladness beyond your companions…

It is clear that the person addressed as “O God”  (Elohim) is not God Almighty but the king, because of what is said later:  God Almighty is the king’s own God and has “anointed” him with oil – the standard act of the king’s coronation ceremony in ancient Israel.  And so God has both anointed and exalted the king above all others, even to a level of deity.   The king is in some sense God.  Not equal with God Almighty, obviously (since the differentiation is made clearly, even here), but God nonetheless.”

Is it possible that Paul was thinking of the risen Christ as “God” in a subordinate sense akin to the Psalmist’s “anointed” king–perhaps in connection with his idea of inheriting the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:21)?

Your thoughts?