Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: the role of the law in salvation-history

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: the role of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 02:45:39 -0500


on 10/2/01 12:03 AM, moon-ryul jung at moon AT sogang.ac.kr wrote:

> Mark, let me quote what you wrote in a hierarchy:
>
> (1)
> This whole point in 3:10-14 is merely a part of a larger point, and if
> that
> larger argument is kept in view, then it will not take on the kind of
> universal value it often does in Pauline discussions. Becoming Law-people
> will not offer to these particular non-Law-people what they think it will
> without also subverting what has initiated this interest in the first
> place.
> For them it would represent a curse instead of a blessing, a moving
> backwards, as though they are not participating in the time-line created
> by
> Christ for them as non-Israelites (for an Israelite there is a curse and a
> blessing, but these non-Israelites benefit from the blessing without the
> curse). Why would they want to do that? is his point, for he thinks that
> they have not considered the matter in such terms, and will be persuaded
> by
> this and other points not to proceed on that other course (5:10).
>
> (2)
> --------------------------------
> For them it would represent a curse instead of a blessing, a moving

> backwards, as though they are not participating in the time-line created
> by
> Christ for them as non-Israelites (for an Israelite there is a curse and a
> blessing, but these non-Israelites benefit from the blessing without the
> curse).
> ---------------------------------
>
> (3) for an Israelite there is a curse and a
> blessing, but these non-Israelites benefit from the blessing without the
> curse.
>
> This is a very surprising statement. I am happy that I forced you enough
> to put this statement down:-)
>
> Let me try to make sense of Paul again.
> The point is that these non-Israelite believers were in a good shape
> enjoying the blessing of the age to come in Christ. Trying to identify
> with Israelites, in a backward move, would put them under the threat of
> curse [3:10]
> Because, for Israel there is a blessing and a curse in relation to their
> law [as declared by the prophets and as realized in history several times
> and even
> now].
> There is no point in that backward move.
> In fact, Christ redeemed us [Gentiles] from the curse of the law (Gal
> 3:13)
> [which is the fate of Israel as the Law-people],
> that to the nations might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus,
> that we [Gentiles] might receive the promise of the Spirit through
> faith
> [Gal 3:14ab].
>
> [The reasons that I take "us" to refer to the Gentiles are twofold.
> (1) "we" refer to Jews only 2:15, where we have explicit indicators
> ie. "we ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners".
> Unless otherwise stated, therefore, it is natural to think that Paul
> uses
> "we" to refer to the Gentile believers in the Galatian church.
> Paul identifies him with them as the leader of the congregation.
>
> (2) "you" and "we" are used interchangeably throughout the letter.
> E.g. 4:5-6. "so that we might receive the sonship. Because you are
> sons,
> God sent the Spirit of his son into our hearts"
> "You" and "we" are interchanged even in a single sentence
> in 4:6.
> ]
>
> Gal 3:14ab repeats 3:1-9, especially Gal 3:8,9 (the blesssing of Abraham
> for all nations)
> and Gal 3:2 (receiving the Spirit through faith). It means that Gal
> 3:10-13
> is a sort of digress introduced to affirm the claims of Gal 3:1-9 from a
> different
> perspective. The key thesis of Gal 3:10-13 is Gal 3:13, because it
> enables the conclusions of Gal 3:14ab. But what does "redeeming the
> Gentiles
> from the curse of the Law" mean in this context?
>
> In this context, Howard's suggestion is attractive. He says that
> "They[Jews] were redeemed from the suppressing force of the law which
> separated Jew from Gentile and held back the universal unity which
> was destined to come."
>
> According to my rendering, it is the Gentiles who were redeemed from the
> suppressing
> force of the law which did not allow them to get access to God without
> becoming
> Jews. That can be certainly called the "curse of the law" for the
> Gentiles.
> But it is not compatible with the meaning and implication of the "curse"
> in Gal 3:10ab.
> There it is the curse that the law pronounces to those who fail to obey
> it. So, let me
> suggest the following:
>
> Christ redeemed us Gentiles from the potential curse of the law by
> enabling us
> to get access to God directly by faith in Christ. If they had to get
> access to God
> via Israel, via the law of Israel, then they would have been under the
> poential
> curse of the law. But they was enabled to bypass the law, thereby was
> redeemed
> from the potential curse of the law.
>
> This solution does not say anything negative about the law-observance of
> Israelites, except for the non-controversial fact that there is a blessing
> and a curse in relation to the law.
>
> So, Paul's point was: You have already been redeemed from the potential
> curse of the law, because you do not have to come to God via the law of
> Israel. Why do you want to undermine what you already have in Christ?
>
> Here I am not trying to make some universal theological point out of the
> fact that
> for Israel under the law, there is a blessing and a curse in relation to
> the
> law. I do not know what kinds of theological points can be legitimately
> made
> from this fact. But it was threatening enough to discourage Paul's
> audience
> from adopting the way of Jews.
>
> What do you think?

Possible. This is a difficult passage to say the least, and I continue to
consider different hypotheses to make sense of it. This is better than most!

The main thing is it must in the end make sense of the rhetorical situation
of 3:1-5 (and the the theme of the letter: 1:1-11); after this Paul resorts
to a narrative from 3:6--4:7 before returning to situational discourse at
4:8. It is one of several arguments made throughout this narrative. Its
importance is confined to that subordinate argumentative role.

It is still, for me, waiting to be solved--after many years now of analysis
of the situational discourse units of Galatians first (Irony of Galatians is
due out from Fortress in November!), before turning full attention to the
narratives.

On this methodological approach, you might be interested to take-up a
challenge. Grab a commentary on Galatians and see how many pages are
dedicated to the narrative units, which are digressions in Paul's letter to
support his situational propositions (1:13--2:21; 3:6--4:7; 4:22-30) rather
than the situational discourse units (the rest of the letter, basically).
The relative proportions of attention given to these units are staggering to
observe; they are assumed to hold universal truths, I think, and interpreted
with little reference to the rhetorical and historical situation of Paul's
letter.

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page