Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul as apostate (was Paul obligated to Torah?)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Paul as apostate (was Paul obligated to Torah?)
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 6:33:10


Dear Mark,
happy to see that you present your case enthusiastically. Let me
participate
in the debate.

[Yonder]
> > > Rather "scripture" imprisoned all things
> >under the power of sin so that what was promised--i.e. righteousness
> >through God's promise to Abraham--might be given via faith in/of X. (v.
> >22). In vv. 23-24 Paul describes Law as the "guardian" or "teacher"
> >(PAIDAGWGOS) under which "we"--Paul and Israel, or all of humanity?--were
> >imprisoned and guarded for a limited time: "until faith would be revealed"
> >(v. 23); "until X came so that 'we' might be justified by faith" (v. 24);
> >"Now that faith has come, WE are no longer subject to a paidogwgos." I
> >emphasize the first person plural pronoun here because it is of utmost
> >importance that Paul includes himself in that group of people who are no
> >longer subject to the Law. Whether the "we" in v. 23 is Paul and Israel or
> >Paul and all of humanity, it seems difficult to argue that Paul thinks of
> >himself as subject to the Law after he declares in v. 25 that "we" are no
> >longer subject to the paidogwgos, and thus not obligated to keep Torah.
>
[Mark]

> > The "we" is tricky, but however it is taken it does not lead to where
> you seem to think it does, at least as I read it. It may refer to
> Paul and other Israelites to confront the implied premise of the
> addressee gentiles, or it could include them by extension.

[Moon]

If "we" are NO LONGER subject to the paidogwgos, doesn't it mean that "we"
were
once subject to it? So, "we" must refer to the Jews. If you take "no longer
subject to the paidogwgos" to mean "no longer subject to the 'implied
premise of the addressee gentiles'", it means that "we" were once subject
to the implied premise of the addressee gentiles. But you would strongly
object to this last statement. So, it seems that "we are no longer subject
to the paidogwgos" implies that the mode of existence under the Law was
somehow
less than mature and there was no reason for the Getiles to get into that
state.

I know that you would not accept this conclusion. I was fascinated by
your approach to "Paul and the Law". But the "last obstacle" seems to be
the language of Gal 4, as far as I am concerned.

Sincerely
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

otimmature
asse


: as long as
> Israel is confined to the role as light to the nations but righteous
> status is reserved for her, then what Paul is proposing, that the
> status of these representatives of the other nations to whom he now
> writes are also righteous ones, could not become the case without
> them becoming Israelites, that is, by way of proselyte conversion.
> But if the time has dawned when Israel is a light to the nations so
> that the representatives of the nations can also become righteous
> ones without becoming Israelites, then the time has changed.
> Righteousness is no longer confined to only Israelites and those who
> join her by way of proselyte conversion. It does not follow that
> Israel loses her righteousness; that seems to me to be an absurd
> conclusion to draw from the argument. Israelites are still the
> righteous ones and have the Law of righteousness; but these gentiles
> are not Israelites or becoming Israelites, they do not have the Law
> of righteousness. All are now one in Christ, Paul argues, but the
> difference between them remains, they are members of different
> nations. Israel is no longer restricted to making proselytes for
> others to become righteous ones; for the time of righteousness for
> all of creation has dawned. But she is still Israel, although now
> things are even better; otherwise what kind of promise would it have
> been for her?
>
> >
> >Another difficult passage is 2:11-14. Paul's confrontation with Cephas
> >comes out of frustration at Cephas' return to strict observance of food
> >laws, who seems to have refused to dine with Gentiles because of kosher
> >regulations (e.g. those in mBerachot 7.1, 8.6; cf. Acts 10:28 for similar
> >(exaggerated?) emphasis on Jewish avoidance of contact with Gentiles).
>
> I do not believe any food restrictions were at risk at the table from
> which Peter withdrew; that they were all eating Jewishly is implied
> in the argument Paul makes in vv. 14ff. (I have a chapter on this in
> Mystery of Romans).
>
> > Paul
> >does not have any problem with Cephas' eating with Gentiles; rather he
> >condemns his return to rigid distinction between Jews and Gentiles based on
> >one particular variety of interpretation of the Law. In v. 14 Paul
> >describes Cephas as living "like a Gentile and not like a Jew" but does not
> >condemn him for failing to live like a Jew, i.e. according to the Law.
> >Rather he condemns him for compelling Gentiles to submit to the very legal
> >requirements that Cephas himself (Paul claims) abandoned. This does not
> >seem to me to support that Paul thought himself, Cephas, and other
> circumcised, Jewish Christians obligated to observe the Law.
>
>
> I disagree entirely. The logic of Paul's argument assumes that
> everyone was eating appropriately, but Peter's withdrawal followed by
> the other Jewish members at the table undermines the legitimacy of
> truth claim that the gentiles at the table are standing (sitting)
> upon, that is, that they are entitled to equal treatment at this
> Jewish coalitions Jewish table without becoming Jewish proselytes.(
> At this table their is no seating arrangement by way of Jewish status
> or not, you might say). Peter's withdrawal is hypocritical; he
> teaches the gentiles this as well as Paul, but then for fear of (loss
> of honor) with outgroup advocates of their proselyte conversion he
> wears a mask. But the implications are not masked for these gentiles
> (at least Paul sees clearly what conclusion they should draw). They
> will be left exposed to draw only one conclusion, the premise upon
> which they have believed their status to have changed is not true.
> They must do as the outgroup maintains and become proselytes in order
> to gain honor as equals among the righteous ones of God, and thus
> acquire an indiscriminate right to sit at the table of honor, in this
> coalition as well as any other Jewish one. So Paul's confrontation of
> Peter is about what time it is based upon the meaning of Christ's
> actions; is it still that time when righteousness is confined to
> Israelites, and thus these gentiles need to become proselytes (as
> your discriminating withdrawal implies), or is it the age to come
> when members of the nations will step up to equal status as righteous
> ones (where difference remains, but not discrimination), a new
> creation community of Israel and the nations worshipping the One God
> of Israel as the One God of all humankind!?
>
> [snip comments from Romans; Gal. has gotten too long a conversation
> for one post already]
>
> >Thus the negativity of Paul's assessment of the Galatians' enthusiasm for
> >circumcision and Law, which I summarized as "clamoring," (Paul's
> >assessment, not mine) comes because Paul thinks that the Galatians are
> >viewing Torah wrongly. It is for him a measure of human need for God's
> >grace, but not the road to justification.
>
> This last statement is on target about circumcision, not Law. Paul's
> comments are rhetorical, situational, not abstract statements for
> everyperson at all times. To accomplish this latter aim would take
> several interpretive moves. We are dealing only with the argument
> Paul was making in his context, so I do not think we should take this
> up, and I find your last sentence out of context. By the way, I think
> it reveals something about later Christian gentiles concerns, like
> Luther's, but not Jewish people or groups of Paul's time, since there
> is no search for a road other than God's grace, on which they already
> stood. It was the road for gentiles that was in question, although
> not a contrast of grace there either, but how that grace was given.
> Could it be received apart from proselyte standing? was the question.
> Work's righteousness was not in view for any of the Jewish people
> involved in the debate.
>
> It is gentiles to whom he writes that "are viewing Torah wrongly,"
> not Jewish people. This exigence (urgency of moment) creates the
> context for Paul's arguments. They must be evaluated in this light.
> These gentiles are not seeking Law per se, but Law identity, because
> in the present age, according to those influencing them, the
> (available gracious inclusive) way for these gentiles to become
> righteous ones in the present age is by becoming proselytes. In other
> words, those influencing the Galatians gentile addressees do not
> agree that the age to come has dawned and thus that the way for
> gentiles to become righteous ones has changed, they do not accept the
> premise upon which this claim by the addressees (and Paul and the
> other Christ-believing apostles) is legitimated, because they do not
> share these gentiles' faith in the meaning of Christ's death for
> themselves. That is the rhetorical context that frames the debate,
> and thus Paul's use of language in this letter.
>
> >
> >Is there a subj. verb in Gal 5:4? All three look indicative to me. I agree
> >that DIKAIOUSTHE should be translated "would be justified/legitimated," but
> >it is indicative.
>
> Yes, sorry; the subjunctive is in v. 2, along with the EAN, which set
> the conditional frame for these statements through v. 6.
>
> Regards,
> Mark Nanos
> Kansas City




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page