Corpus-Paul

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

> Dear Moon,

I find it difficult to answers your questions as put, not because 
there is anything wrong with the questions per se, but because I am 
still trying to make sense of this overall passage as it relates to 
Antioch much less Galatia, and this verse is the toughest statement 
of all.

> [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?

In what sense would living for God be followed by a comment that he 
does not live? The contrast is between living for God's approval as 
now convinced by a revealed interpretation of the dawning of the age 
to come ethic because of the actions of God in Christ toward gentiles 
or to approval of the keepers of the traditional interpretation for 
the present age ethic (that is the tension Peter was facing in 
Antioch about how to behave with these gentiles); having failed in 
the one to live in the manner of the age to come he is no longer 
bound to this pursuit any longer, but is to live to God in the age to 
come manner. Yet in the next verse he does not live, but remains 
dead...?

> 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.

First I just want to point out that the issue is confined to one 
aspect of loving the neighbor at Antioch, that is, eating with these 
gentiles indiscriminate of their status as non-proselytes, but your 
comment might be construed as a larger principle. As a general rule, 
discrimination in love according to human affiliations continues in 
Paul's language just as it does for other interpretations of Law, 
even in this letter (cf. 6:10). The issue is very specific in 
Antioch, and it is how to discriminate or not when eating with these 
gentiles in Christ.

He is still constrained by the Law if a Jew, that is, he is still 
eating Jewishly, but the interpretation of the Law is modified 
according to the conviction that the age to come ethic has become 
appropriate in the case of gentiles eating with Jews 
indiscriminately, as long as those gentiles eat appropriately for 
such table-fellowship to take place. That is the point of the Antioch 
incident, and the members of this group must be willing to suffer 
from other Jewish interest groups which disagree with this 
interpretation, to stay this course. Note that Paul follows this 
comment in v. 19 by stating that he does not live (for God?), but 
Christ lives in him (for God?), and that life which he does live (for 
God?), since he does live (in the flesh, i.e., as a human) even 
though he says that he does not live (in the flesh for God?), he 
lives by the faith of the son of God. So it does not seem that he is 
saying he was unable to live to God but now is, but that he was 
unable to live to God and now does not live to God either, that is, 
as a human seeking the approval of human agents and agencies of the 
traditional interpretation of Law on this matter, except as a 
substitute for Christ's life in continuing after Christ has been 
crucified. So is he simply saying what he has insisted throughout the 
letter, that he is no longer seeking to live in a manner that pleases 
the keepers of the traditional interpretation of good news (for 
inclusion of gentiles as indiscriminate equals by proselyte 
conversion), but in a manner that pleases God who has revealed to him 
that in Christ these gentiles have already been included as 
indiscriminate equals? (cf. 1:10-12)

Thus your second proposal does not seem to fit well into the language 
of v. 19 in my view, as it does not seem to follow from v. 18 or lead 
to v. 20, and, as incredible as it may seem, the grammar indicates 
that Paul thought it would communicate something that helped to 
clarify the overall argument. This seems to be that Paul is a 
stand-in for Christ in continuing to stand-up for this indiscriminate 
table-fellowship, as Peter should be as well, and thus not anxious 
about the dishonor that might result from others who interpret the 
Law differently on this matter. Following Christ in this matter has 
not relegated these Jews by nature to gentile sinner status (Christ 
is not a servant of sin, v. 17), but it has involved them in being 
crucified to the appeal of honor by the traditional interpreters 
(they have made themselves stand-ins, v. 18). Somehow doing the Law 
in this new way is not a violation of the Law but a way of living to 
God. The true intention of the Law has not changed, but the 
interpretation of how to do it has changed with the belief that the 
age to come has dawned because of the loving and giving of God in 
Christ (v. 20), and not living according to the implications that 
follow would be in effect to render that a meaningless/gratuitous 
action (v. 21).

As you can see, I am still struggling to get this language to work, 
and your questions have led me to spend many hours again trying to 
translate and interpret this passage. I wonder what someone who knows 
Greek as well as Carl Conrad would make of the language, or if he has 
worked with the theme of substitution that is going on within it. It 
has something to do with understanding the issues in Antioch, 
probably less so in Galatia, except as the addressees learn how Paul 
is a model for them and Peter is not, so that they should not 
compromise walking-straight toward the gospel of Christ in the sense 
of becoming proselytes to gain indisputable status, since this would 
compromise the status they have already in Christ as gentiles, and 
thus compromise the declaration of what the meaning of the death of 
Christ is for the present age. With the kind of ironic double-talk at 
work here I wonder if the addressees (native readers/listeners) got 
every detail in this passage when they came to a statement like we 
find in v. 19, or just the gist of the overall message...?

Regards,
Mark Nanos