Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The treatment of "dying to the Law" in the Mystery of Romans by Nanos
  • Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 08:33:47 -0600


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page