Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Moon,
I see that you are staying with the easy passages in our exchanges! I am still working on this passage (and will always be...?), and can see several ways to take Paul's meaning. But the context of course makes all the difference, and the context has nothing to do with Jewish people keeping the Torah or not, although the traditional reading turns around this as though it were the issue. The issue is about table-fellowship between Jewish and gentile believers in Christ when they are all eating Jewishly, that is, appropriately to their standing as Jews and gentiles when eating together within this Jewish coalition of Christ-believers who eat together a meal celebrating the arrival of the age to come, the age of shalom between Israel and the nations.

> This time I would like ask a question about your treatment of
> Gal 2:19. Through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God.
>
> In p. 363, you said:
> It should not interpreted as though this dying is a good thing. ..., as
> though "through Christ I escaped the Law". ..Paul said that "
> through the Law [which taught me to love God and my neighbor] I died to
> the Law", that is, I was unable to fulfill the service of God and my 
> neighbor: "the good that I wish, I do not do" (Rom 7:19).
>
> Here is the question. If you are right, the causal connection between 
> "dying to the Law" and "living to God" is not clear. How
> can being unable to fulfill the service of God (dying to the Law)  
> lead Paul to live to God? Some kind of "liberation" from the
> bad aspect of the Law would help Paul to live to God. 
>
>
> The expression "dying to the Law" also occurs in Rom 7:4, and 
> 7:6, where some kind of liberation from the bad aspect of the Law
seems implied. 

You asked then: Did I misundertand you here?

The bad aspect, Moon, is of human limitations, not the Law, and that is what Paul celebrates as being modified with the dawning of the age to come in Christ, an age when Torah is able to be observed by Paul and Peter, Jewish people, as it will be observed in the age to come, with love of every neighbor unhindered by human limitations. The context of Paul's comment makes all the difference. And its terse ironic presentation assumes an insider context. I wonder if the Galatian readers really got this, although I assume that however it was put to Peter that it was clear to him. I will give an extended answer, the gist of which is similar to other recent comments, although they were not about language found in the narrative of the Antioch Incident.

The view articulated briefly in Mystery was shaped in the context of a proposed reading of Rom. 7 and Gal. 2:11-21 as reflecting a similar struggle for a Jewish person like Paul or Peter in dealing with the conviction that non-Jewish people were now to be granted the same status as righteous ones as Jewish people without becoming Jewish people, which on the surface seems to be a violation of the role of Israel to be God's righteous ones on behalf of all of the nations until the end of the ages arrives (to guard as well as to bear witness). It is also a difficult proposition for humans to accept Johnnies-come-lately, an aspect of intense desire (covetousness) that is an expression of envy (begrudging of the gaining of good by the other) that must be resisted by all humans, not a Jewish problem, but a human one (this is the context of the comments of Rom. 7 in my view). But the context for Paul and Peter is when describing an incident of this problem for themselves about matters having to do with the boundary between themselves a Jewish people and the gentiles entering into their coalition, and the response this brings not only from within themselves, but also from other Jewish people who do not share their view of why this is legitimated (justified) by the death of a Jewish martyr of the Roman regime (since it is still the present age in their view). It may help to state up front, that, in this case the interest group Paul describes as "the ones for [out of] circumcision" that is present in Antioch (v. 12) I take to be those who do not share their conviction about the meaning of the death of Christ, a non-Christ-believing Jewish group (they are not the same as the "ones from James," or if they are, they are not "James-people," i.e., Christ-believers as is James; there are several possibilities that I will not go into here, but a difference is being observed between these groups).

In Galatians the context of Paul's comment arises in the so-called Antioch Incident because of Peter's withdrawal from indiscriminate table-fellowship with gentiles. This action "masks" what Peter truly believes, that gentiles have been righteoused (stepped-up/justified) by faith in/of Christ to the same standing as Israelites, they are righteous ones. He does so out of social anxiety, being unwilling to suffer the consequences of resisting the pressure from "the ones for circumcision," in other words, the Jewish interest group (groups?) in Antioch which advocates that these gentiles need to become proselytes if they are to engage in such indiscriminate fellowship (that is the way of the present age). Peter's "hypocritical/masked" action of withdrawal violates the trust of these gentiles, for they have to date remained in the marginal state of being gentiles within this Jewish coalition, instead of becoming proselytes as they would in other Jewish groups in Antioch, and thus in a position to engage in such indiscriminate fellowship on terms that did not marginalize them vis-a-vis other and probably more populated and powerful interest groups than their own Christ-believing subgroup/coalition. They are thus "compelled" by the logic of Peter's action to choose to become proselytes if they wish to avoid such status dissonance and resultant discrimination in the future (at least that is the logical conclusion Paul draws on their behalf).

Then we come to the language by which Paul explains to the Galatians what he said to Peter in effect in Antioch when this occurred, and he says that this was done in order to put Peter in his place for this wrongful (and self-condemning) action according to the terms of Peter's own convictions as a Christ-believing Jewish person. Paul uses himself to explain to Peter the (il)logical implications of his actions. In other words, Paul is describing what he and Peter as Jewish people who believe in Christ agree should follow this conviction in terms of their identity vis-a-vis gentile believers in Christ. (The charge is hypocrisy, misbehavior assuming a shared belief; not apostasy, a change of behavior because of a change of belief, which many of the current interpretations of the clash between Peter and Paul instead assume or argue!).

The point is that Peter should not let his fear of what other Jewish interest groups will think of his action lead to his masking of what he truly believes has changed because of the meaning of the death of Christ, and should continue to engage in indiscriminate table-fellowship with these gentiles (at this Jewish coalitions' table). This is based upon the belief that these gentile sinners by nature have stepped-up to equal standing with Jewish people by nature, that is, they too are now righteous ones of God (vv. 14-16). Otherwise the logical conclusion is that these Jewish people have stepped-down to standing as gentile sinners, and Christ is the agent of this (v. 17). But may that never be the case! But if these Jewish Christ-believers were to now tear-down the indiscriminate table-fellowship that they are building-up to date (as Peter has just done, hypocritically tearing-down in the action that just occurred [hence aorist] what he is actually otherwise engaged in building-up [hence present]), then they have logically made themselves to be as though mere gentile sinners (this is not the action of Christ, but they are themselves the servants brining about this change of status). 
[[[note here that PARABATHN in v. 18 is not about transgression, but about the one who runs alongside the charioteer to step-up to fill his place should he fall, but the point is whether they (Peter and Paul and other Jewish Christ-believers) have moved from their place of privilege {as though charioteers/Jews by nature} to one of lesser status {as though becoming PARABATOI/mere fill-ins/gentile sinners}]. This is a reversal of the usual reading of v. 18, as well as a different take on PARABATHN, and does not assume that Paul is writing the same thing as is written in Eph. about the barrier, but the opposite. It is not the barrier between Jews and gentiles being torn down as in Eph. 2:14, but the removal of the (non)barrier (the indiscriminate table-fellowship that they are building to date) that has just been torn down by Peter's recent withdrawal, implying a return to a conviction of reality that they no longer share with this interest group advocating the proselyte conversion of these gentiles in order to engage in the kind of table-fellowship at issue. This reading assumes that Peter is still proclaiming the gospel of Christ (building-up) while behaving hypocritically in withdrawal (torn-down). [lit.: But if what I destroyed/tore-down {aor....by withdrawal}, these things {e.g., indiscriminate table-fellowship} again I am building-up {pres....by continuing to proclaim the gospel of Christ}, I am proving myself a mere fill-in {gentile sinner in status, since it undermines the very status of this coalition as a Jewish group into which the gentiles have stepped-up}]]].

Then we come to verse 19, and beyond. The point after this phrase (vv. 20-21) is that as a Jewish person Paul has been crucified with Christ, and thus is no longer subject to the "fear of the ones for circumcision," that is, to human agencies or agents of interest groups which disagree with him about the meaning of that death for engaging in the kind of indiscriminate table-fellowship with these Christ-believing gentiles in which he (and Peter, and the rest of the Jewish Christ-believers, v. 13) engage, in the present age that is. Otherwise the death of Christ was a meaningless gift/gratuitous, and the grace of God toward these gentiles useless (v. 21). The issue is whether Peter (and Paul, and other Jewish Christ-believers) will live according to the convictions of this coalition when doing so will be accompanied by social disapproval from other Jewish interest groups in the present age. Have they been crucified with Christ (shamed) to the appeal of honorable social standing according to the traditional interpretation of reality in the present age? Where is their honor gained or lost? Do they not keep the Torah according to their convictions as Jews in-Christ, which involves them in indiscriminate table-fellowship with gentiles in-Christ? Otherwise is not the meaning of the death of Christ from both Jew and gentile rendered meaningless? Has the age to come dawned in Christ, or not?

Paul is in v. 19 playing with words in an ironic fashion (for I through a law to a law died), playing one against another, which can be done for any word or concept. If the above discussion of the context has Paul's argument right, then the point in v. 19 is not that they as Jewish people have escaped the obligation to observe Torah, which is not an issue for them (not even a logical or present consideration! even if it is a natural assumption of later gentile Christians), but that by the action of Christ the end of the ages has dawned, and thus that this modification of behavior where gentiles in-Chist are concerned is legitimate/justified. Is this behavior of indiscriminate table-fellowship with gentiles in Christ Torah-observance in view of the meaning of the death of Christ? Indeed, is the implied answer, for Torah, Paul argues, calls for loving the neighbor (in this case, gentile sinner) as myself (in this case, as a Jew by nature), but I was unable to do that in the present age unless the gentile became a proselyte. Since I now believe they have stepped-up to equal standing as righteous ones of God, I now do the Torah of loving my neighbor as modified by my understanding of the meaning of God's gift toward the gentile in Christ. To do otherwise would be to deny Torah! is the implied point that puts Peter in his place. (I do not mean to imply that Paul is saying a non-Christ-believing Jewish person cannot love the gentile neighbor, that is not the context of his argument, but Peter would not be doing so because of what he believes but now by his action fails to live; at this point Paul is retelling insider language that took place in Antioch between Paul and other Christ-believing Jews who agree on these principles about what the implication would be for themselves in view of their faith in Christ if they behave in a way that undermines these principles).


Any clearer?

Regards,
Mark Nanos