Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

> Moon writes:
> I wanted to ask this question also to Mark's post. If you are right,
> Paul started with "You Gentiles received Spirit through faith" and ended
> with "Christ is cursed so that the Jews might receive the promise of
> the Spirit". Isn't it somewhat off the mark?

Dear Moon,
I am not sure I understand your question. What is the mark? And does 
not Paul's argument go the opposite way according to my comments? 
Perhaps Paul is saying "Christ redeemed us (Israel) from the curse of 
the Law (Deuteronomic covenant with Israel), having become a curse 
for us (Israel)...that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham 
(covenant with all nations) might come upon the gentiles/all nations, 
that we (all humankind) might receive the Spirit through faith (the 
faithfulness of Christ and/or the response of faith)." His preceding 
and following arguments seem to be along this same line.

If Paul is distinguishing between Jewish and non-Jewish people to 
make a point for the non-Jewish addressees that they should not seek 
now to become Jewish people, then it is of course possible that some 
results of his argument might seem (or even be) odd if pressed by a 
different set of questions. Are you asking if Paul's concept of the 
purpose/meaning of the death of Christ was different for Jewish and 
gentile people in my earlier post?

If so, then I would reply; yes, at least in terms of their situation 
vis-a-vis being bounded by the covenant (Israelites/Jews) or not 
(other nations/gentiles). This would imply having different needs. 
That is how his argument follows in chapter 3 and early 4; the 
addressees have received the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant 
without participation in the Mosaic one; do they now suppose that 
this is not the case even though God has demonstrated this for 
themselves? Do they now think they must go back and enter the Mosaic 
to participate in the Abrahamic? It seems that this is the kind of 
argument he is running to support his call not to do so in 3:1-5. The 
language of Rom. 15:7-8 comes to mind as another example of 
difference Paul maintains within an argument between Jewish and 
non-Jewish people in terms of the meaning of Christ's actions on 
their behalf.

This does not mean that Paul is arguing in a larger sense that God 
starts with gentiles to reach Israel, but that might seem implied 
when he is arguing with these particular gentiles about their own 
context. I think he grounds his position on the gentiles on the 
foundation of God's work to the Jew first, but also to the gentile, 
maintaining the distinction throughout. In Galatia the question is 
whether it is only to the Jew in the present age (the conclusion 
implied by their interest in becoming Jewish proselytes), to which 
Paul replies that it is not, as your own experience testifies, 
because the age to come has dawned in the midst of the present age, 
the awaited time of restoration of Israel, and salvation of the 
nations too (Abraham as the father of many nations). It is this 
premise that Paul considers undermined by the position the addressees 
are being influenced toward, whether those who hold that position 
have concerned themselves with this implication, or, more likely, in 
spite of the fact that they have not and would probably be surprised 
to hear it run.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City