Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gal 4:3, 9

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 AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Gal 4:3, 9
  • Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:41:51 -0400


Loren,
thanks for your reply. I have thought about the issue
and I am quite inclined to take "we" rhetorically, ie.
to refer to the Gentiles with whom Paul as the apostle to them
identifies. It seems to solve many problems.
But I have some obstacles to clear away to adopt
your position. I will play as Devil to ask some tough questions.
They are difficult questions to any interpreters, I guess.

[Loren]
> “Rhetorical”, meaning that Paul really isn’t aiming to
> include himself (or any Christian Jew) in the
> discussion, whether in 3:10-14, 3:23-29, or 4:1-10.
oo literally here. But I don't
> think it can be taken literally even in the other
> texts. In describing the law as a “curse”, it is
> highly doubtful that Paul viewed it this way for the
> Jewish people (even in light of the new age). Rather,
> it is a curse for Gentiles in light of the new age.
>

With these “we”’s and “us”’, Paul includes himself
> with his Gentile converts for the sake of rhetoric and
> solidarity. Is this clearer?
>

[Moon]
Your position makes the referent of "we" and "you" in
3:10-14, 3:23-29, or 4:1-10, the same, i.e. the Gentiles.
It reminds me of LLoyd Gaston, who said on p. 70, Paul and the Torah,
that "does that mean that Paul so identifies with the Gentiles
to whom he is sent that he himself in a sense HAS BECOME
a GENTILE?". He thinks that those under the law are Gentiles,
and the curse of the Law only applies to the Gentiles who are
outside of the Covenant. I think this is a brilliant
hypothesis to work from and it really makes sense. At the least
it can easily avoid making Paul a false witness to what the Law and
Judaism really were. My reading has its own problems to resolve. Our
task is to test whether each hypothesis can bear all the data or
can answer all the reasonable criticisms.

Let me first raise some "criticisms" upon your/Gaston's hypothesis.
Of course, you will have quite a number of criticisms on my hypothesis,
which I will state later.

Your hypothesis should be able to answer the following questions.

Q1. It seems to be strange linguistically speaking to use different
pronouns "we" and "you" to refer to the same group in the same paragraph,
e.g. 3.25-26, and 4:6.

Q2. Consider:
3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse
for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"
--3:14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon THE
GENTILES, that WE might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Gaston thinks that 3:14 identifies THE GENTILES and WE, so that WE really
means
WE THE GENTILES. But for me, this sentence implies some distance
between THE GENTILES and WE. If the referents of THE GENTILES and WE are
the same, would you write as Paul did? I would not. I would write "upon
US,
that WE.." or "upon the GENTILES, that THEY...".

Q3. Consider:

4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of
woman, born under the law, 4:5 to redeem THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW, so
that WE might receive adoption as sons (or sonship).

By the same reasoning as above, I feel some distance between
THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW and WE. The way Paul expressed seems most
natural when the referents of THOSE WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW and WE are
different.

Q4: Consider:
4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a
slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; 4:2 but he is under
guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 4:3 So with us;
when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the
universe.

Here the boy under the pedagogue was the dear son of the father, the heir
to
the father. He was temporarily under the pedagogue. Though the body
did not like the pedagogue time to time, actually the pedagogue was the
symbol that the boy belonged to the father who was rich and powerful.
SO WITH US the JEWS! They were dear sons of God the Father, but when they
were
very young, they were enslaved by the pedagogue. Because the Gentiles were
not
sons of God the Father at all, the pegagogue analogy does not apply to
them.

Q5: I am not sure if you agree with Gaston with respect to the
interpretation
of the ERGA NOMOU. I think his understanding of ERGA NOMOU is closely
related to the way he understands "we".

Q6:
Based on Rom 4:15 "the Law works (katergazetai) wrath", he takes ERGA
NOMOU
to be the wrath that the Law works. (p. 105, his book) He says:
No wonder tat the works of law are not a source of justification.
No wonder that they can be said to put people under a curse."
He also says, p. 106 : the law actively works in the Gentile world
to create a situation from which people need redemption. Here, outside
the context of covenant, law excercises retribution for human
sinfulness in a process called "wrath". I wonder what is your position
on the works of the law.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is important to take a position on the meaning of the works
of Law, in order to intepret "we" in Gal 3 and 4 correctly. So, please
allow me to digress on the meaning of ERGA NOMOU.

I do not take the works of Law as the wrath of Law. As discussed
very actively on this list, I take the works of the Law as the deeds
commanded by the Law which identify the Jewish people as Jewish, as the
people of God. The works of the Law includes of course circumcision,
dietary
laws, as James Dunn argued. They may include other things, but when they
were considered the works of the Law, they were supposed to be the
identity markers of the people of God. So, when Paul said, "man is
righteoused
by faith apart from the works of law" (Rom 3:28), it meant that man is
righteoused by faith without coming Jews, without obtaining the identity
markers of the Jewish people. This interpretation is supported by the
context of Rom 3:28:

For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?
Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the
circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through
their faith.

The sentence "Or is God the God of Jews only?" implies that the negation
of
"man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" means that God is
the God of Jews only. If man is justified based on the works of the Law,
it means that the God who righteouses man is the God of Jews only, because
only Jews can do the works of the Law as a Law-people.

So, I believe with many interpreters that Paul's language of "not from the
works of the Law but faith" was employed to fight for the inclusion of
Gentiles into the people of God by faith in Christ, WITHOUT them becoming
Jews by
doing the works of the Laws, the identity markers of the Jewish people.
I now believe that everytime Paul talks about the Law, he has in mind
this issue. "Under the Law", hence, is taken to mean the same thing as
"under the works of the Law". That is my hypothesis.

In Gal 3 Paul deals with this issue first by refering to Abraham. The
conclusion of the paragraph dealing with Abraham is:

3:9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had
faith.

The long section from from 3:10 through 4:7 deals with the Law, the point
of
which I believe is that the Law was a temporary measure given to the
Jewish people, the people of God, to guide them, and the Law was "not such
a good thing" that Christ came to redeem the Jews, those who were under
the Law. The
Jews needed to come out of the barrier of the Law to form the people of
God together with the Gentiles. Paul deals with this Jew-Gentile relation,
not
simply about the Gentiles.

Consider:
3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;
3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 3:27 For
as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 3:28 There
is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The custodian, the Law of the Jews, required Gentiles to become Jews
in order to be included in the people of God. Now that fatih has come,
that barrier, that custodian, is gone. In Christ, there is neither Jew nor
Greek. In "You are all sons of God" [3:26], "you all" can be naturally
taken
to refer to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles [ refer to 3:28].
If "under the pedagogue" has nothing to with this barrier between Jews and
Gentiles, why would Paul say "neither Jews nor Greek in Christ" and "you
are all one in Christ" at this point?
[We may have the same conclusion
even if we have "we the Gentiles are no longer under a custodian".
In Christ, we the Gentiles do not need to comply with the Law's
requirement for circumcision. Hence we are no longer under a custodian,
ie.
being required to get circumcision, though we once were. But unless
those under the Law are proven to refer refer to the Gentiles,
I would take "We the Jews are no longer under a custodian" ]

Loren,

it is again deep into the night. I have to teach a three-hour class
in the early morning. I must go to bed right now. I hope that I raised
good topic to discuss.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Sogang Univ,
Seoul, Korea






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page