Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Mark,

[Moon]
> >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.
> >

[Mark]
> 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. 

[Moon]
The above statements led me to interpret Gal 2:19 in two ways.

Version 1: I DIED to the Law, i.e to the true intention of the Law,
 being UNABLE TO LOVE the neighbor (gentile sinners) THROUGH the LAW which
the Jews thought prohibited them from loving the neighbor 
indiscriminately.
 
This interpretation is similar to that is given in the Mystery of Romans.

But this does not make sense to me, because dying to the Law in this sense
does not seem to have any connection to "living to God". In what sense 
would
being unable to love the neighbor be the ground for living to God? 

Version 2: I DIED to the Law, which the Jews thought prohibited them from
loving the neighbor indiscriminately, THROUGH the Law, i.e. through the 
true
intention of the Law which required them to love the neighbor 
indiscriminately.
Dying to the Law in that sense has a connection to living to God, because
it means that Paul is no longer constrained by the Law with respect to
the table fellowship with Gentiles. 
 
Which version do you have in mind? Is it true that version 1 is what you 
have
in the Mystery of Romans?

Regards, 

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea

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).
>