Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Paul break the Law?
  • Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:38:38 -0600

Dieter,
I would like to think along with you here and discuss this case, but I am
unclear what you take the conclusion to be. Please explain how choosing one
or the other is superfluous, and how you translate and interpret the phrase.
Most helpful would be to explain the implications then, in the concrete case
of a Jewish person of Paul's time, like Paul, who believes in the
faithfulness of Christ.

On your translation and interpretations:

A.: Does that Jewish person regard the doing of Torah observance, let's say
dietary rules, now obsolete with the coming of Christ?

Or B.: might it mean a specific function of Torah that relates to the
metaphor introduced by pedagogues, guardians, and trustees, to protect the
child from outsiders?--in this case, to protect Jews from non-Jews, which is
now no longer required, since non-Jews who believe in the seed of Abraham
join with Jews who believe in him as one family as joint heirs, the awaited
day having dawned.

(For B, I wonder about this implication: In that case, perhaps the point is
not a global one [that Jews believing in Christ do not continue to observe
Jewish dietary laws], but rather that the separating function of the Torah
[of protecting Jews from non-Jews, the righteous seeds of Abraham from the
unrighteous of the other nations] would have completed its purpose, but
there would be the need for some halakhic decisions about how to accomplish
continued dietary customs when meeting with non-Jews who believe in Christ,
but are not similarly obliged [or are they?--cf., Acts 15]. That is to say,
there are other functions of Torah regulations than separation from
non-Jews, which have to do with covenant obligations that continue, since
the covenant with Moses was also not revoked for those who are descendents
of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob/Israel according to the flesh as well as
faith.)

Geia sou,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/


on 1/13/05 9:29 AM, Dieter Mitternacht at dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se
wrote:

> Since the discussion (as ever so often) has come to the core question, I
> would
> like to include Gal 3 in the discussion (if anyone is interested),
> especially
> the part about the Nomos having a beginning and an end(?) with the coming of
> Christ. In sum, the nomos was given 430 years after the promise, which was
> given to Abraham. The purpose of the nomos was to be OUR (Paul says)
> peadagog
> until the Seed would come, who(sic!) is the Messiah (vv.19, 24). With the
> coming of the faithfulness of Christ (pistis christou), the old pedagog is
> no
> longer required (v 25).
>
> There are a number of issues here one could discuss. I would like to invite
> you to probe the following with me:
> Many take the preposition UNTIL (eis) in Gal 3:24 as temporal, assuming the
> idea of a nomos-period that comes to an end with Christ. Since Paul is
> referring to those who were held prisoners under the nomos before pistis
> came,
> and uses the pronoun "we", I suppose we should assume that he has those in
> mind that were under the law during the timespan from Sinai to Golgatha,
> i.e.
> Jews.
>
> The temporal view of "until" was introduced in reaction to the Lutheran
> position that the law was and always is a promoter of Christ (pedagogos
> hemon
> eis Christon, "unser Zuchtmeister auf Christum"), in terms of showing the
> failure of worksrighteousness and encouraging "pure" trust in the grace of
> God.
>
> I would like to hear your comments on the following. Accepting the
> subjective
> genitive for pistis Christou, one could argue that the faithfulness of
> Christ
> in his submission to the will of God even unto death on a cross, in Paul's
> view, was the ultimate realisation of the purpose of the nomos. If the nomos
> taught submission to the will of God, Christ both taught and lived it. Now
> if
> the nomos and the Christ in fact have the same purpose, the nomos may be
> superceded by the Christ but not in contrary but in complementary fashion.
> The
> purpose of both the nomos and of Christ is to teach submission to the will
> of
> the God with whom "we" have entered into a covenantal relationship, some
> earlier, some later. The Messianic age of course brings with it new
> blessings,
> e.g. Jer 31:33), but again the difference is not law contra grace or works
> contra faith, but the nomos and Christ accomplishing the same purpose (with
> Christ being superior to the nomos, in Paul's view). Once this reading of
> the
> schema of Gal 3 is entertained, doesn't that make the discussion of whether
> "until" is temporary or timeless almost superfluous?
>
> Dieter Mitternacht
> Lund University, Sweden
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page